{"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=with_response","first":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?state=with_response","last":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=3\u0026state=with_response","next":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions.json?page=2\u0026state=with_response","prev":null},"data":[{"type":"petition","id":216539,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216539.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Amnesty for anyone who was a minor that arrived In Britain between 1948 to 1971","background":"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay.We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor.The government should also provide compensation for loss \u0026 hurt.","additional_details":"With successive changes in immigration policy and legislation over the last 70 years along with the independence of countries which now form part of the Commonwealth this has created uncertainty and lack of clarity and justice for tens of thousands of individuals who have worked hard, paid their taxes and raised children and grandchildren and who see Britain as their home. \r\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/30/antiguan-who-has-lived-59-years-in-britain-told-he-is-in-uk-illegally","state":"open","signature_count":179614,"created_at":"2018-03-30T16:36:00.632Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:26:05.228Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-06T16:51:31.292Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-30T17:45:10.856Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-10T08:34:58.848Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.011Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-15T07:23:23.315Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-04-30","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-01T08:54:46.658Z","creator_name":"Patrick Vernon OBE","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.","details":"This petition was debated in Westminster Hall on 30 April 2018 and as part of that debate the Minister for Immigration said:\r\n\r\nLet us be in no doubt about the debt of gratitude that this country owes to the Windrush generation… they were invited to come to the United Kingdom immediately after the second world war and in the decades that followed to help us to build modern Britain…\r\n\r\n…We cannot fail to be moved and to be ashamed when confronted with the individual stories, but as a result, be determined to get the wrong righted, to sort the cases out and to make sure that the legal status is confirmed.\r\n\r\nThe Government is clear that an amnesty for this group is not required because these people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.\r\nThe Immigration Act 1971 set out in law a provision that those here before it came into force should be treated as having been given indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK. It also retained a right of abode for certain Commonwealth citizens. Therefore, everyone that arrived in the UK and was settled before 1973 was given settlement rights by operation of law and was not required to have any specific documentation to prove those rights. \r\n\r\nSince 1973, many of the Windrush generation will have obtained documentation confirming their status or would have applied for citizenship and then a British passport. For those who have not, the former Home Secretary announced a series of measures on 16 and 23 April 2018 to ensure the Windrush generation could easily obtain documentation to demonstrate that right and could easily go on to apply for British Citizenship.\r\n \r\nOn 16 April, the previous Home Secretary announced a dedicated taskforce would be established to support the Windrush generation. The taskforce is taking calls and emails from those who are affected and guiding them through the application taskforce. Since its inception on 17 April the taskforce has documented hundreds of individuals who were affected.\r\n\r\nIn the Westminster Hall debate on this petition, the Minister for Immigration said of the taskforce:\r\n\r\nI was in Croydon and in Sheffield with caseworkers who are on the frontline, doing their best to help people through the process. \r\n\r\nI have to say that I was very impressed with the determination of those caseworkers to be sympathetic and understanding, and to talk people through the process as gently as they possibly could while at the same time enabling them to give their stories and to provide a picture of their life in the UK—helping them through a process with which we should have been helping them much earlier.\r\n\r\nOn 23 April, the previous Home Secretary announced four measures to assist those in the Windrush generation to become British Citizens:\r\n\r\nFirstly, that the Government will waive the citizenship fee for anyone in the Windrush generation who wishes to apply for citizenship. This applies to those who have no current documentation, and also to those who have it.\r\n\r\nSecondly, that the Government will waive the requirement to carry out a Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK test for British Citizenship.\r\n\r\nThirdly, that the children of the Windrush generation who are in the UK and need to apply for naturalisation will have their fee waived. For those not born in the UK but now living here, provided they joined their parents as children (before the age of 18) they will also be covered by the scheme.\r\n\r\nFourthly, that those who made their lives here but have now retired to their country of origin, are able to come back to the UK, without fees. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have announced that a compensation scheme will be put in place for those who have suffered loss as a result of these difficulties, and that the Government will consult on the design of this scheme – such as the shape it should take, what it should cover, and how long it should be for. \r\n \r\nAccordingly, the Home Office have launched a call for evidence addressed to those who have been affected by this situation and their families. This is an opportunity for those people to tell the Government what happened, how it has affected them and what they believe the compensation scheme needs to address.\r\n\r\nAs a first step the Government have asked Martin Forde QC to provide independent oversight and advise us on the design of the scheme. He will help us to understand the experience of people who have been affected and how this should be reflected in the scheme.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z","updated_at":"2018-05-23T11:50:21.008Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-04-30","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-04-30/debates/CEC6AAFF-E02D-41DA-B681-AF9713BE6F82/MinorsEnteringTheUK1948To1971","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f29d6e8b-ff66-4e9b-97a6-89dc46a9dbfd","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0109","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":215782,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/215782.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban balloon and sky / chinese lantern releases.","background":"In 2013 the Government commissioned a study on balloons \u0026 sky lanterns. This report is now out of date! In March 2017 MCS reported 53% increase in balloon litter, upon 2015. 'Biodegradable' balloons and ribbons snare/kill farm, wild \u0026 marine life and take years to rot.","additional_details":"Sky lanterns are dangerous - they cause fire \u0026 damage \u0026 a risk to life. The NFU, MCS \u0026 50 local councils want balloon/sky lantern releases banned!\r\n\r\n2013 UK Government DEFRA \u0026 Welsh Government Report: http://bit.ly/2GcuEU0\r\n\r\nTime to back balloon releases\r\nhttp://www.xray-mag.com/content/time-back-banning-balloon-releases\r\n\r\nMarine Conservation Society Information Sheet\r\nhttps://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/pollution/dont%20let%20go.pdf\r\n\r\n‘Nowhere is safe’: Young horse panicked by helium balloon suffers broken neck: http://bit.ly/2oV72r4\r\n\r\nFarmer wins compensation after Red Nose Day balloon kills cow\r\nhttp://bit.ly/2pu813a\r\n\r\nSmethwick fire: Chinese lantern 'caused largest blaze'\r\nhttp://bbc.in/2FY6SaX\r\n\r\nBunch of balloons in Billericay halts trains in their tracks http://bbc.in/2BSrdjy","state":"open","signature_count":26998,"created_at":"2018-03-21T15:49:19.115Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:40:07.114Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-26T09:20:35.675Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-21T16:55:48.816Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-30T14:54:26.089Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-22T16:37:58.008Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rosemary E Lunn","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government considers the current regulatory regime, supported by existing information and guidance, is effective and proportionate. ","details":"There is no evidence to suggest that the 2013 study of the risks posed by sky lanterns and helium balloons on livestock and the environment needs to be updated at present. \r\n\r\nOn land, balloon litter is relatively uncommon, and is not among the top 20 most commonly found types of litter. On beaches, balloons are not in the top ten items of beach litter assessed by the Marine Conservation Society. \r\n\r\nAny action must therefore be proportionate to the level of risk. Voluntary actions and initiatives to raise awareness of risks have been effective. The Government has been taking forward a series of non-regulatory measures, aimed at minimising the risks associated with sky lanterns and helium balloons and driving up safety standards, and people are becoming more aware of the risks. Initiatives include a voluntary code of practice for sky lanterns to ensure they are manufactured to be safe and are sold responsibly. The National Association of Balloon Artists and Suppliers, the trade association for the balloon industry, has also published a code of conduct on balloon releases. Moreover, local councils are using existing powers to restrict or regulate the use of lanterns on council-owned land.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-05-22T16:37:58.003Z","updated_at":"2018-05-22T16:37:58.003Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":208723,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/208723.json"},"attributes":{"action":"UK Government to raise the murder of Carl Davies with the Government of France","background":"In 2011 a former Royal Marine working in Maritime Security called Carl Davies was murdered on the French Island of Reunion in the Indian Ocean. The Reunion authorities have still to date not brought Carl's murderers to justice and the family need some form of closure regarding the death of Carl.","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":10815,"created_at":"2018-01-02T15:11:03.428Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T10:00:13.426Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-11T13:09:28.288Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-02T21:02:29.192Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-27T15:48:19.820Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-18T13:40:42.008Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Jordan Wylie","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Carl Davies’ murderer was found guilty in June 2017 and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He has appealed. Therefore, it is not appropriate to raise this case with the French authorities","details":"The French authorities on the island of La Reunion arrested and charged a French national with Carl’s murder. The accused stood trial, was found guilty in June 2017 and has been sentenced. He is currently appealing the sentence. Foreign Office officials have followed this case closely, and will do so during the ongoing appeal process. We have offered Mr Davies’ family support since his murder in 2011 and do so until the case has concluded. \r\n\r\nThe investigation in Reunion, trial and the appeal process has been conducted in accordance with French law. As HMG does not interfere in the judicial processes of another country, it would not be appropriate to raise this case with the French government.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2018-05-18T13:40:42.006Z","updated_at":"2018-05-18T13:40:42.006Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":218952,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/218952.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make everyone with a life time disability mental or physical have life time pip","background":"It's completely unfair that people with life time disability mental or physical have to repeatedly go through forms, face to face interviews, mandatory considerations and tribunals. It's mentally draining and unfair to repeatedly go through this when it's a life time illness you have.","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":36522,"created_at":"2018-04-29T18:35:46.318Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:28:18.685Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-03T14:53:53.375Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-29T19:51:05.314Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-05-08T16:43:57.172Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.285Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sian Williams","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"PIP is based on needs not condition. Reviews are a key part of the benefit and ensure awards remain correct where needs may change, and that claimants continue to receive the correct level of support.","details":"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. We want to enable disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. We have, therefore, designed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to reflect a modern understanding of disability, treating all conditions fairly.\r\n\r\nPIP maintains the key principles of Disability Living Allowance as a non-means-tested cash benefit available to people in and out of work but which is delivered in a fairer and more consistent manner. It is only right that support is targeted at those disabled people who require the most assistance to lead independent lives and PIP is achieving that; 29 per cent of the 1.6 million claimants now receiving PIP getting it at the highest level (£143.35 a week) compared to 15 per cent for working age Disability Living Allowance prior to the introduction of PIP.\r\n\r\nPIP is needs-based and not condition based and reviews are a key part of the benefit to ensure that the right support continues to be delivered. \r\n\r\nIn terms of award lengths and reviews, once someone has been awarded PIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, that award will be reviewed. Reviews of PIP are a key part of the benefit and ensure that not only do awards remain correct where needs may change but that we also maintain contact with the claimant, both features missing from its predecessor Disability Living Allowance. Importantly, the length of an award is based on an individual’s circumstances and can vary from nine months to an on-going award, with a light touch review at the ten year point. \r\n\r\nHowever, PIP already recognises that for the most severely disabled claimants, the award review process could seem unnecessarily intrusive. That is why we introduced changes so that existing claimants with the most severe, lifetime disabilities, whose functional ability has remained the same, are more likely to have their evidence reviewed by a DWP Decision Maker and will not need to have a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional.\r\n\r\nThe Government are committed to ensuring that the PIP reassessment process works effectively across the spectrum of disabilities and health conditions, including mental health conditions, cognitive impairments and physical disabilities.\r\n\r\nGoing forward, one of our key priorities will be to ensure that those with progressive or degenerative conditions for which functional limitation is likely to stay the same or worsen who are awarded the highest level of support get an award duration that is appropriate to the condition and needs arising – something we acknowledge that is not always happening. We are therefore developing a solution through changes to guidance which will ensure that those receiving the highest level of support get an appropriate award duration.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions","created_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.282Z","updated_at":"2018-05-17T16:55:38.282Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":209433,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords","background":"The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":167038,"created_at":"2018-01-12T13:08:04.466Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:45:44.050Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T18:36:38.185Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-12T14:54:34.514Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T22:00:48.770Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.496Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-23T22:32:25.308Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-18","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Robert McBride","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government is committed to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. ","details":"As set out in the manifesto, the Government is committed to ensuring that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. \r\n\r\nWhilst comprehensive reform is not a priority, the Government will also continue to work to ensure that the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.\r\n\r\nThe Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Burns, made recommendations in October 2017 on ways of reducing the size of the House without requiring legislation. In response, The Prime Minister has written to the Lord Speaker and agreed to continue with the restraint she has shown so far when making appointments to the House. It is incumbent on all sides of the House to consider what they can do to further promote the culture of retirement. In light of the Prime Minister's letter, the Lord Speaker has asked the Committee to reconvene to consider next steps. \r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.494Z","updated_at":"2018-05-15T16:42:14.494Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":212467,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/212467.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Set up a public inquiry into the National problem of Paedophile grooming gangs","background":"Paedophile grooming gangs seem endemic nationwide in the UK it is apparent some are possibly racially motivated \u0026 the UK public deserves protection from this and an inquiry should investigate fully if race \u0026 culture is a factor and if sentencing is adequate and investigate if culture influences rape","additional_details":"Rotheram, Luton. Oxford, Huddersfield, Sunderland and numerous other towns counties cities and rural areas have seen an increase in paedophilia grooming gangs of various race colour and religions in the UK many within religious sectors and the inquiry needs to focus on culture religion and if many of these attacks are focused on a particular race and if culltural is an influence in these attacks.Sentencing never seems severe enough and local authorities seem to make the same mistakes.","state":"open","signature_count":23111,"created_at":"2018-02-09T19:36:19.407Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:17:35.073Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-07T19:45:31.961Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T21:07:02.928Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T10:46:03.446Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T15:25:05.381Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"mark woodrow","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government takes child sexual abuse very seriously. It has set up the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which is investigating the sexual exploitation of children by organised networks.","details":"Child abuse is a despicable crime and the Government is committed to keeping children and young people safe from all forms of abuse. We are clear that if child abuse takes place it must be thoroughly and properly investigated and those responsible brought to justice – the race, age or gender of the perpetrators is irrelevant. Child sexual exploitation is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion, and political or cultural sensitivities must not get in the way of preventing and uncovering it. \r\n\r\nThe Government is clear there should be an honest open debate on child sexual exploitation, including racial motivation.\r\n\r\nIn February 2017, the Government published the ‘Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation: Progress Report’ and announced a £40 million package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse and exploitation and crack down on offenders. The ‘Progress Report’ details delivery of the ambitious programme of work set out in the 2015 ‘Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation’ report, and signals a step change in our national response to sexual exploitation and violence against children and young people. The full report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation-progress-report. \r\n\r\nKey Actions include:\r\n \r\n•\tWe have invested significantly in the law enforcement response to child sexual abuse, giving it the status of a national threat to empower police forces to apply their best skills and expertise to tackle the problem, and providing millions of pounds of investment through the Police Transformation Fund. This has led to a surge in police activity with an increasing number of cases prosecuted in the courts and heavy sentences handed down. We have invested in the frontline response to child sexual abuse, for example recruiting an extra 100 specialist rape and child sexual abuse prosecutors, establishing new investigative teams in the National Crime Agency, and launching a new Child Sexual Exploitation Response Unit to support social care, health and other agencies. Our new £7.5 million Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse is conducting research into types of offending, so that we can understand and target them more effectively.\r\n\r\n•\tWe have funded a large scale communications campaign – Together, we can tackle child abuse – to raise awareness and encourage the public to report child abuse and neglect. Additionally, we have published a revised definition of child sexual exploitation and targeted guidance and training, which will ensure professionals have a shared understanding of what child sexual exploitation is and how best to work together to tackle it. \r\n\r\n•\tWe have improved scrutiny through joint inspections of health, police and children’s social care focusing on the quality of frontline practice in dealing with child sexual exploitation and missing children. We have also launched a new national whistleblowing helpline, operated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), for any employee who wants to raise a concern about how their organisation is dealing with a concern about a child. \r\n\r\n•\tIn the last 3 years, we have provided £7 million in funding for non statutory organisations which support the victims and survivors of sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, £0.6 million of this funding was distributed directly by the Home Office to organisations working with victims and survivors of sexual abuse over a large geographic area.\r\n \r\nIn March 2015, the Government established the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse to consider the extent to which institutions in England and Wales have failed in their duty to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The Inquiry operates independently of Government and, within its terms of reference, decides for itself what it investigates and how. It has already announced an investigation into institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children by organised networks. The Inquiry also runs a Truth Project to enable victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to share their experiences in a confidential setting and make recommendations for change. The Inquiry’s work will help us all to understand what went wrong in the past and learn lessons for the future. Further information on the Inquiry, including how to take part in the Truth Project, can be found at: http://www.iicsa.org.uk. \r\n \r\nSentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts taking into account all the circumstances of each case.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-15T15:25:05.379Z","updated_at":"2018-05-15T15:25:05.379Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":215343,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/215343.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Reduce the age of Breast Screening to 25-30","background":"I was diagnosed with breast cancer age 36, at 37 I was told it was terminal. I have a 8 year old daughter who has already lost her dad to heart disease. Because of my age, I never dreamt I'd have breast cancer\r\nCancer does not discriminate!\r\nHelp our kids get diagnosed quicker to prevent early death","additional_details":"I know of a huge amount of women/men diagnosed with breast cancer between the age of 23-40 most are now terminally ill and leaving children \u0026 babies behind. \r\nI want everyone to have a better chance of survival; not only for themselves, but for their children, parents, siblings, friends.\r\n\r\nCancer does not discriminate, it doesn't care how old or fit you are or whether you're male or female, so why are mandatory mammograms only available for women 50+","state":"open","signature_count":27076,"created_at":"2018-03-16T12:09:37.805Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:11:35.147Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-21T14:18:06.905Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T12:39:08.171Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-20T07:55:10.362Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.483Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Vicky Fenn","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government is committed to helping detect, treat and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. Evidence for the effectiveness of screening women under 50 is limited.","details":"We are very sorry to hear of your terminal breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancer can be a devastating disease and the Government is committed to providing well-managed screening programmes based on the most current peer reviewed evidence to ensure the greatest benefit.\r\n \r\nA screening programme is introduced following a robust process using peer reviewed evidence that shows the benefits to screen clearly outweigh harm and they are subject to central programme specifications and quality assurance. The English cancer screening programmes are internationally renowned for their rigour, standard of evidence, national implementation and quality assurance.\r\n \r\nThe NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP) in England offers all women between the ages of 50 and 70 the opportunity to be screened every 3 years for breast cancer, to help detect abnormalities and reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. The NHS BSP aims to detect breast cancer early when there is a greater chance of cure. \r\n \r\nAlthough early detection is the best way to reduce breast cancer mortality by giving the opportunity to offer women more treatment options, which may save lives, there are also risks. These include over-diagnosis (referring for unnecessary tests) and over-treatment (operating on disease that is unlikely to cause serious harm). For women under the age of 50, there is evidence that breast screening is less effective, as younger women have less fatty, denser breast tissue. Screening with mammography (x-rays) is the technique that is evidence-based and can detect cancers at an early stage. However, they are not very effective in diagnosing disease in younger women with dense breasts. Breast screening is offered from the age of 50 as the chance of developing the disease increases with age. Four out of five breast cancers develop in women over the age of 50. There is insufficient evidence to confidently offer breast screening to women at a much younger age as doing so will find many abnormalities which will be treated but would never have developed into a cancer. This can cause harm and anxiety. Not all breast cancers can be detected early when they are non-invasive and some women with non-invasive disease would never have cancer during their lifetime. \r\n \r\nThere are several trials in the Programme addressing these issues currently:\r\n•\tForget me not www.sloaneproject.co.uk/NonTreatmentStudy.htm \r\n•\tLoris www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/a-trial-comparing-surgery-with-active-monitoring-for-low-risk-dcis-loris\r\n•\t Sloane www.sloaneproject.co.uk/. \r\n \r\nThe 2012 UK independent review of breast cancer screening (Marmot review) estimated that inviting women between the ages of 50-70 reduces mortality from breast cancer in the population invited by 20% and saves an estimated 1,300 lives a year. It also found that screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70 years could lead to over-diagnosis or over-treatment. The review can be found here: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/breast-screening-report.pdf \r\n \r\nIn June 2015, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published the findings of a review on breast cancer screening in the New England Journal of Medicine. A group of 29 independent international experts from 16 countries, convened by the IARC, assessed the cancer-preventive and adverse effects of various methods of screening for breast cancer. The findings of the review support the current age at which women are first invited for breast screening in England and the 3 year interval period between invitations. The IARC’s review found limited evidence for the effectiveness of screening women in the younger age group of 40 to 49. Women over 70 are not routinely invited for breast screening as there is no evidence to support this, although they can self-refer every 3 years if they wish. You review can be accessed here: www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr234_E.pdf\r\n\r\nWomen that are identified as being at high risk of the disease (e.g. due to a genetic mutation such as BRCA1/2 or having had supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy at a young age) can be referred into the programme at a younger age. However, for this younger cohort, screening is usually performed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which is a more suitable screening test than mammography alone.\r\nWe encourage all women to be breast aware and anyone with concerns should discuss these with their GP.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.481Z","updated_at":"2018-05-15T11:21:33.481Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":217239,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/217239.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Fund free BSL lessons for every parent or carer of a Deaf child in the UK","background":"90% of Deaf children are born to hearing families, most of which will have no experience of what they need to do to support that child. As a Teacher of the Deaf I repeatedly meet families that cannot afford BSL, which can leave the child isolated \u0026 frustrated. It costs £3000/person to gain level 3","additional_details":"Growing up as a CODA (child of Deaf adults) I have met adults/children who are left bitter \u0026 angry towards their own families as they felt excluded at meal times, parties \u0026 from daily life. Leading them to seek out the Deaf community in order to find support \u0026 understanding. Some end up with mental health issues which were fuelled by the isolation. Learning BSL alongside a child as they grow will allow inclusivity. Families need to celebrate their new journey with freedom from cost. Thank you.","state":"open","signature_count":14857,"created_at":"2018-04-10T08:24:49.936Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T12:44:22.188Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-13T12:02:36.742Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-10T09:10:50.256Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-28T08:26:39.602Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-14T16:58:02.993Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sarah Brinsden","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Government has funded the development of a family sign language programme, through the I-sign programme, which is freely available at the National Deaf Children’s Society family sign language website.","details":"The Government recognises that early access to language is essential to help children to learn and to thrive. It is vital that parents and carers are supported to communicate with deaf and hearing impaired children, as well as young people that they care for. \r\n\r\nThe Government has recognised BSL as an official language since 2003. BSL is a vital method of communication and we recognise that many hearing people choose to learn BSL in order to communicate more effectively with hearing impaired people in everyday life.\r\n\r\nThe Government wants all children to be able to reach their full potential and receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. That is why, through the Children and Families Act 2014, we have transformed the system for supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), including those with hearing impairment. \r\n\r\nTo implement these reforms we have invested in a number of programmes to support children and young people with hearing impairments, and their families. Over the past five years, we have funded a partnership of charities through the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) to provide support to early years, schools, post-16 providers and local authorities to improve outcomes for children and young people with sensory impairment. \r\n\r\nWe have funded the development of an Early Support guide for parents of deaf children available through the Council for Disabled Children’s website. \r\n\r\nIn addition, we have also funded the National Deaf Children’s Society’s I-Sign project and the development of a family-orientated sign language course http://www.familysignlanguage.org.uk/mainpage.htm \r\n\r\nFrom April 2018, Government is funding a Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) schools’ workforce contract with a consortium of organisations, led by nasen and including NatSIP, to deliver support to improve the support and training available to help schools with pupils with all types of SEND, including deaf and hearing impaired pupils. \r\n\r\nThe Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) requires local authorities to assess whether a parent carer within their area has need for social care support and, if so, what those needs are.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education\r\n","created_at":"2018-05-14T16:58:02.991Z","updated_at":"2018-05-14T16:58:02.991Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":214621,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214621.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require hospitals to reinstate life support if a patient survives for 15 mins.","background":"There have been several cases in the media recently where hospitals have gone to court to get permission to remove life-support from children. This has been done on the premise that they would not live long after it was removed. This has not always been the case.","additional_details":"Introducing this legislation would clarify existing law on the prohibition of euthanasia to bring peace of mind to troubled parents and restore confidence in the NHS, which is being maligned worldwide as a result of these cases. A doctor should be present to reintroduce support throughout the wait.","state":"open","signature_count":11845,"created_at":"2018-03-08T20:45:02.765Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T12:00:01.867Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-19T10:55:26.167Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-08T22:09:37.815Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-23T15:48:59.613Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-09T16:49:11.147Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Angela Costley","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"It is for clinicians to decide the best course of action following withdrawal of life support.","details":"The primary aim of medical treatment is to benefit the patient by restoring or maintaining health as far as possible, maximising benefit and minimising harm. If however, all suitable treatments fail, or cease to provide benefit to the patient, they may, ethically and legally, be withheld or withdrawn, and the focus of treatment changed to the relief of symptoms. In practice, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment is of course, often very difficult. \r\n\r\nDoctors, nurses and other clinicians who are delivering care to severely ill patients are required at all times to have regard to the best interests of the patient when considering what treatment is appropriate and indeed, whether to continue life sustaining treatment. \r\n\r\nWhere there is disagreement between those with parental responsibility and treating clinicians about a child’s treatment, including whether to continue life sustaining treatment, the court will be asked to determine what is in the child’s best interest. The views of the parents will be very important in the court reaching decisions, but it is the child’s best interests that are paramount, not the rights of those with parental responsibility.\r\n\r\nThe power to consent must be exercised according to the ‘welfare principle’: that the child’s ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’ must be paramount. Even where a child lacks capacity to consent on their own behalf, it is good practice to involve the child as much as possible in the decision-making process. \r\n\r\nIf children have the capacity to give consent for themselves, consent should be sought directly from them. Once young people reach the age of 16, they are presumed in law to be competent to give consent for themselves for their own surgical, medical or dental treatment, and any associated procedures, such as investigations, anaesthesia or nursing care. Those under 16 are not automatically presumed to be legally competent to make decisions about their healthcare. Under-16s will be competent to give valid consent to a particular intervention if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed. If a child is not competent to give consent for themselves, consent should be sought from a person with parental responsibility. \r\n\r\nAs is the case where patients are giving consent for themselves, those giving consent on behalf of child patients, must have the capacity to consent to the intervention in question, be acting voluntarily and be appropriately informed. The power to consent must be exercised according to the ‘welfare principle’: that the child’s ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’ must be paramount. \r\n\r\nDuty of Clinicians, Secretary of State and Government powers\r\n\r\nThe duty of clinicians and the courts to treat the child’s best interests as paramount is consistent with the European Court of Human Rights and international conventions on the rights of the child. The Government does not intervene in individual cases, nor compel clinicians to act in ways that they consider to be unethical, unlawful and contrary to the patient’s best interests.\r\n \r\nGuidance\r\n\r\nNational Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance (NG61), is especially helpful in covering the planning and management of end of life and palliative care in for infants, children and young people (aged 0–17 years) with life-limiting conditions. It aims to involve children, young people and their families in decisions about their care, and improve the support that is available to them throughout their lives. Link: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG61\r\n\r\nThe BMA is working with the Royal College of Physicians and the General Medical Council to issue updated and in-depth guidance on good clinical and professional practice for making decisions about clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. Interim guidance is at: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/mental-capacity/clinically-assisted-nutrition-and-hydration\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-09T16:49:11.143Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T16:49:11.143Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":213782,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213782.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ensure that the U.K. leaves the EU Single Market \u0026 Customs Union.","background":"On 23rd June 2016, the U.K. voted by majority to leave the EU. In the 2017 General Election, the two main parties promised to leave the single market \u0026 customs union and subsequently they received an 80% vote share. Therefore the government must be able to withdraw the U.K. from the Customs Union.","additional_details":"If certain MP’s \u0026 political parties continue to frustrate Brexit then they will be rejecting the will of the people. When voters voted for Brexit, they voted to control Britain’s borders; control our laws and have the ability to strike free trade deals around the world. The government must be allowed to deliver upon the wishes of the people.","state":"open","signature_count":22779,"created_at":"2018-02-25T15:15:08.895Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T16:42:05.951Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-02T13:39:48.893Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-25T18:39:22.169Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-24T20:17:38.393Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.454Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Alex Hunt","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The UK is leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union. We are seeking to establish a deep and special partnership with the EU and a new customs arrangement outside the EU’s Customs Union. ","details":"As the Prime Minister has made clear, when we leave the European Union, we will also be leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union.\r\n \r\nThe UK is seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership – covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any Free Trade Agreement anywhere in the world today. We want to have the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours. \r\n\r\nWe have listened to EU leaders and we understand and respect the position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no cherry-picking. We do not seek membership of the Single Market after we leave the EU, but a bold and ambitious Economic Partnership as part of a new special partnership. \r\n\r\nRemaining a member of the Single Market would mean accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the EU. It would mean still not having control over immigration. It would therefore fail the first test for our future economic partnership with the EU the Prime Minister set out at Mansion House. \r\n\r\nBy leaving the Customs Union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world, and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and the EU. In doing so, we will be providing a positive and powerful voice for free trade.\r\n\r\nTo ensure UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible, the Government has considered two broad approaches to a future customs relationship with the EU that would facilitate the UK’s objectives.\r\n\r\nBoth of these options for our future customs arrangement would leave the UK free to determine its own tariffs with third countries - which would simply not be possible while part of the Customs Union.\r\n\r\nAs the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending. It marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. However, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the result of the referendum which was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money.\r\nWe are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as this would be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We therefore approach the negotiations in this spirit.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.451Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T10:15:29.451Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":203708,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203708.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Repeal the 1939 Cancer Act so that doctors can offer alternatives to chemo","background":"Doctors are not legally allowed to offer or advise on alternatives for fear of criminal prosecution and the loss of their license to practice.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10267,"created_at":"2017-10-25T18:57:57.543Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.578Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-06T16:13:29.088Z","closed_at":"2018-05-06T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-29T21:59:11.177Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T18:08:25.089Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.558Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"In prescribing treatments, a clinician should take account of an individual’s circumstances, medical history and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and available evidence.","details":"The 1939 Cancer Act does not prevent doctors offering any treatment option which is backed by robust evidence. The only surviving operative provision of the Act is Section 4, which is essentially a prohibition on taking part in “the publication of advertisements containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy thereof, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof”. It is not directly relevant to this petition, since the provision doesn’t prohibit doctors from offering or advising on alternatives to chemotherapy. There appears to have been an incorrect interpretation. This provision prohibits advertising to the general public (except in situations outlined in sections 4(4) and 4(5) of the Act).\r\n\r\nThe Department last consulted on changes to the Act in 2006, and subsequent to this a Legislative Reform Order came into force in October 2008. This removed the need to consult the Attorney General before bringing a prosecution and made clear that there is discretion on whether or not to prosecute under the Act, rather than a duty to do so.\r\n\r\nIt is for local National Health Service commissioners to make decisions on whether to fund new treatments, taking into account National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, available evidence and individual patient’s clinical circumstances. The future availability of any new or novel treatments would be subject to large scale clinical trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the treatment approach and subsequent assessments of its cost effectiveness for routine use.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.555Z","updated_at":"2018-05-09T09:01:56.555Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":207040,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing","background":"Safe Standing offers a much safer alternative to fans who wish to stand, rather than sit at football matches. After the highly successful introduction to rail seating at Celtic Park, as well as numerous Bundesliga clubs, many football fans feel that laws preventing standing areas should be relaxed.","additional_details":"Some football clubs that already have successfully installed rail seating are: Celtic, Werder Bremen, Hamburg SV, Vfl Wolfsburg, Hannover 96 and the famous “yellow wall” at Borussia Dortmund. \r\n\r\nIn conclusion, there is a clear demand for safe standing with 92% of respondents saying fans should be given the choice to stand in safe standing areas, in a poll by the Football Fans Census, and it would only promote English football further by improving the overall matchday experience.","state":"open","signature_count":111740,"created_at":"2017-12-04T13:00:50.405Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:47:36.985Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-08T14:39:55.168Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-04T15:10:41.027Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-11T19:54:00.553Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.925Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-25T15:57:20.341Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-06-25","debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Owen Riches","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government believes that all-seater stadia are currently the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales.","details":"The Government thanks all the football supporters who made their views known through this petition.\r\n\r\nThe Government believes that all-seater stadia are currently the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales, while continuing to work closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and football authorities to consider advances in technology and data that may enhance the existing policy.\r\n\r\nA debate in Parliament on this issue has been tabled for 25 June, when the nuances and complexities of sports ground safety will be covered in more detail.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.923Z","updated_at":"2018-05-03T13:19:37.923Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":202280,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202280.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Place stoma signs on disabled toilets and add stoma changing facilities within.","background":"Stoma patients have unseen disabilities and although entitled to use disabled toilets, often face verbal abuse from the public when trying to access them. Stoma patients need a hygienic area to change ostomies and this is not provided. Unseen stoma disabilities need protection and recognition.","additional_details":"Stoma patients face prejudice from both the able and visibly disabled communities. Stoma patients are forcibly pushed and pulled out of the way when trying to access disabled facilities. 21,000 people are left with a stoma every year, this is a growing issue.","state":"closed","signature_count":10508,"created_at":"2017-10-06T08:54:40.817Z","updated_at":"2018-05-08T14:12:49.600Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-12T14:13:35.427Z","closed_at":"2018-04-12T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-06T15:02:09.449Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-11T23:04:49.173Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T13:16:13.379Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Clean safe and suitable environments for stoma patients are important. Statutory guidance on new facilities includes the needs of stoma patients and advises on the use of well recognized signage.","details":"Clean safe and suitable environments for stoma patients are important. Approved Document M gives statutory guidance for new facilities, includes the needs of stoma patients and advises on the use of well recognized signage. Layouts for unisex accessible toilets already include coat hooks, a small shelf, a waste disposal bin and a wash hand basin. Guidance in Part M (Access to and use of buildings) of the Building Regulations also refers to the British Standard BS 8300-2:2018 Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment. Buildings. Code of practice. This standard makes further recommendations as to how a toilet can provide changing accommodation including facilities for users of stoma bags.\r\n\r\nBuilding Control Bodies check for compliance of new accessible WC’s, but the Building Regulations only apply to building work, and do not extend to the management of buildings in use. The Equality Act sets out a “reasonable adjustment duty” and service providers are expected to anticipate the reasonable adjustments that stoma patients may require and manage how toilets are used by different users without discrimination. Designating unisex accessible toilets with stoma signs would segregate rather than include stoma patients. \r\n\r\nGovernment is considering how current guidance supporting Part M works for stoma patients.\r\n\r\nMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government","created_at":"2018-05-03T13:16:13.377Z","updated_at":"2018-05-03T13:16:13.377Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":210497,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/210497.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce super visa category for parents of British citizens similar to Canada","background":"Parents for British citizens are treated differently if they reside in countries outside the EU and are not EU citizens and government has made the settlement of parents under ADR practically impossible so we are looking for a middle ground as it is done in Canada with SUPER VISA","additional_details":"With the parent and grandparent super visa, eligible parents and grandparents can visit family in Canada for up to two years without the need to renew their status .The Super Visa is a multi-entry visa that provides multiple entries for a period up to 10 years. The key difference is that the Super Visa allows an individual to stay for up to two years on initial entry into Canada, while a 10-year multiple entry visa would only have a status period for each entry of six months only. Refer visa rules by Canada government and criteria as reference ,sponsor does most work","state":"open","signature_count":11154,"created_at":"2018-01-23T05:24:25.015Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T15:26:51.384Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-29T10:09:51.936Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-23T07:50:10.061Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-18T08:41:37.031Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.189Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Nitin Khanna","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government has no plans to change the Immigration Rules for visitors to introduce a super visa for parents of British citizens. ","details":"The UK welcomes genuine visitors to the UK. The visitor routes are for people who are coming to the UK for a temporary purpose, usually for up to six months. Visitors should not be living in the UK through frequent or successive visits or making the UK their main home. \r\n\r\nEvery visitor is assessed against the same Immigration Rules regardless of nationality. The only difference is where that assessment is made. Some individuals are assessed overseas by an entry clearance officer, while others are assessed at the UK border. All visitors to the UK are assessed against the Immigration Rules on a case by case basis.\r\n\r\nNationals of some non-EEA countries need a visa to visit the UK. Visas are an important part of securing the UK’s border and are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. \r\n\r\nAdopting a similar model to that of Canada and allowing a select group of people to remain in the UK for 2 years as visitors, would mean that important considerations against the Immigration Rules would not be applied consistently and could raise equality concerns. \r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the importance of family ties. Visit visas are available with validities of 6 months, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years, allowing individuals wishing to visit the UK regularly or at short notice to do so without having to apply for a new visa each time they wish to travel. \r\n\r\nThe family Immigration Rules were reformed in July 2012 to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse, and thereby ensure that family migration to the UK is on a properly sustainable basis that it is fair to migrants and the wider community. \r\n \r\nWe reformed the route for adult dependent relatives, given the significant NHS and social care costs which can be associated with these cases. The Department of Health has estimated that a person living to the age of 85 costs the NHS on average around £150,000 in their lifetime, with more than 50% of this cost arising from the age of 65 onwards. This figure does not take account of any social care costs met by local authorities. \r\n\r\nUnder the rules, adult dependants must demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided in the UK by their sponsor here and without recourse to public funds. They must apply from overseas, not while in the UK as a visitor. \r\n\r\nAs well as the significant NHS and social care costs to which these cases can give rise, there are also broader issues of fairness. Adult dependent relatives can continue to visit a family member in the UK (for up to six months) but must return home at the end of their visit: we do not allow visitors to switch into other immigration categories while in the UK and the adult dependent relative category should not be an exception. There should also not be a routine expectation of settlement in the UK for parents and grandparents aged 65 or over. Only those requiring long-term personal care that cannot be delivered in the country in which they are living should be eligible to settle in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe rules for adult dependent relatives seek to ensure that only those who need to be physically close to and cared for by a close relative in the UK are able to settle here. Those who do not have such care needs can be supported financially in the country in which they live by their relative in the UK. Those most in need of care remain most likely to qualify, compared with those who simply have a preference to come and live in the UK with a relative here. The lawfulness of the rules was upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2017. \r\n\r\nThe rules do not provide a route for every parent to join their adult child in the UK and settle here and it is not intended that they should do so. Overall, the rules represent a fairer deal for the taxpayer, given the significant NHS and social care costs which can arise when adult dependent relatives settle in the UK.\r\n\r\nHome Office\r\n","created_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.186Z","updated_at":"2018-05-03T11:36:09.186Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":216594,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216594.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow undiagnosed children to travel to different countries to treat \u0026 diagnose","background":"If a child's hospital wish to turn off the life support of a child who has an undiagnosed condition, but there is an alternative hospital abroad willing to treat them and find a possible diagnosis, then the parents should legally be allowed to decide if the child should go. Parental rights!!","additional_details":"There have been many documented cases of parents vs a hospital in times of difficult decision making regarding their child's life. Many have been forced to switch off the life support of a child or have legal action taken against them for fighting for their child. If the parents believe their child can have a chance of living if they are treated somewhere else, parents should be allowed to move their child to a different hospital when there is a hospital offering their child a place!","state":"open","signature_count":24059,"created_at":"2018-03-31T18:54:58.853Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T12:25:26.865Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-12T09:57:01.791Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-31T19:01:32.564Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-24T21:47:37.229Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-03T09:09:47.074Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sian Ibberson","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Clinicians and the courts are obliged to act in the best interests of patients, including in determining the viability of pursuing alternative diagnosis and treatment options.","details":"The primary aim of medical treatment is to benefit the patient by restoring or maintaining health as far as possible, maximising benefit and minimising harm. \r\n\r\nDoctors, nurses and other clinicians who are delivering care to severely ill patients are required at all times to have regard to the best interests of the patient when considering what treatment is appropriate and indeed, whether to continue life sustaining treatment. \r\n\r\nWhere there is disagreement between those with parental responsibility and treating clinicians about a child’s treatment, including whether to continue life sustaining treatment, the court will be asked to determine the child’s best interest. The views of the parents will be very important in the Court reaching decisions but it is the child’s best interests that are paramount, not the rights of those with parental responsibility.\r\n\r\nRegardless of any offer by hospitals based abroad to take a child to their hospital for treatment, clinicians and the courts are obliged to consider what is in the best interest of the individual child concerned, including in determining the viability of pursuing alternative diagnosis and treatment options. \r\nThe power to consent must be exercised according to the ‘welfare principle’: that the child’s ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’ must be paramount. Even where a child lacks capacity to consent on their own behalf, it is good practice to involve the child as much as possible in the decision-making process. \r\n\r\nIf children have the capacity to give consent for themselves, consent should be sought directly from them. Once young people reach the age of 16, they are presumed in law to be competent to give consent for themselves for their own surgical, medical or dental treatment, and any associated procedures, such as investigations, anaesthesia or nursing care. Those under 16 are not automatically presumed to be legally competent to make decisions about their healthcare. Under-16s will be competent to give valid consent to a particular intervention if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed. If a child is not competent to give consent for themselves, consent should be sought from a person with parental responsibility. \r\n\r\nAs is the case where patients are giving consent for themselves, those giving consent on behalf of child patients, must have the capacity to consent to the intervention in question, be acting voluntarily and be appropriately informed. The power to consent must be exercised according to the ‘welfare principle’: that the child’s ‘welfare’ or ‘best interests’ must be paramount.\r\n \r\nDuty of Clinicians, Secretary of State and Government powers\r\nThe duty of clinicians and the courts to treat the child’s best interests as paramount, is consistent with the European Court of Human Rights and international conventions on the rights of the child. The Government does not intervene in individual cases, nor compel clinicians to act in ways that they consider to be unethical, unlawful and contrary to the patient’s best interests. \r\nGuidance\r\nNational Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance (NG61) is especially helpful in covering the planning and management of end of life and palliative care in for infants, children and young people (aged 0–17 years) with life-limiting conditions. It aims to involve children, young people and their families in decisions about their care, and improve the support that is available to them throughout their lives. Link: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG61\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-05-03T09:09:47.071Z","updated_at":"2018-05-03T09:09:47.071Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":208170,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/208170.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Manufacture the new blue passport in GB not Germany or France.","background":"The new blue passports have been hailed as a sign Britain is seizing back control from the EU - but they could end up being made in France or Germany.\r\nWhen the uk should be manufacturing these with the uk company De La Rue who produces this \u0026 many other documents, secure British jobs not eu.","additional_details":"The government has released the information into the news that they could give a French or German company £490 million.\r\nSo the £490,000,000 will not be supporting British jobs or support people paying British tax, this will take money out of our country.\r\nPlease sign and share.","state":"open","signature_count":36182,"created_at":"2017-12-22T12:58:35.784Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:15:31.735Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-02T14:04:08.286Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-22T13:54:08.991Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-23T15:39:40.073Z","government_response_at":"2018-05-01T15:11:04.391Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Lee fillingham","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"With no lawful basis to put the procurement of services to design, manufacture, and personalise UK passports out to tender to UK-based suppliers only, a fair and open competition was run. ","details":"The passport procurement process was run from its outset in March 2017 in accordance with UK law and in line with EU and World Trade Organisation rules. \r\n\r\nThere was no lawful basis as to why these services could only be delivered by a UK-based supplier, and no reason for blank passports to be manufactured in the UK. Manufacturing passports overseas presents no security concerns, with up to 20 per cent of blank UK passports currently being produced in Europe.\r\n\r\nThe contract was awarded on 18 April 2018. All passports will continue to be personalised with the holder’s personal details in the United Kingdom, which ensures that no personal data will leave the UK. This also ensures the continued need for British jobs to service the new contract.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-05-01T15:11:04.389Z","updated_at":"2018-05-01T15:11:04.389Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":214030,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214030.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Hold a referendum for the legalisation of cannabis","background":"It is clear that the cannabis debate is not going away and given that the current conservative government understand the meaning of democracy by giving a referendum to the public on our membership of the E.U it should give the public a referendum on cannabis legalisation and let the public decide","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":15577,"created_at":"2018-02-28T23:35:29.626Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:46:14.410Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-12T16:24:18.473Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-01T21:07:58.878Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-13T20:37:33.607Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-30T12:42:38.839Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Gareth lendrum","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis. ","details":"Cannabis is a Class B Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is a substantial body of scientific and medical evidence to show that controlled drugs, such as cannabis, are harmful and can damage people’s mental and physical health, and our wider communities.\r\n \r\nThe evidence from the Government’s independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (‘ACMD’), is that the use of cannabis is a “significant public health issue and can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society”. The ACMD’s most recent advice on cannabis is set out in its 2008 report - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acmd-cannabis-classification-and-public-health-2008.\r\n\r\nThe legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs. It would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-04-30T12:42:38.836Z","updated_at":"2018-04-30T12:42:38.836Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":216496,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216496.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Add Multiple Sclerosis to the Medical Exemption list","background":"To obtain a Medical Exemption Certificate and get free NHS prescriptions a condition needs to be on the current Medical Exemption list. I feel this list does not go far enough to help those suffering with long-term conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis. A revision could help thousands of people.","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":14874,"created_at":"2018-03-29T22:21:50.519Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T05:25:05.294Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-06T15:47:18.281Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-29T23:26:01.483Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-13T08:38:00.302Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-26T11:09:07.049Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Hannah Woods","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government has no plans to review the list of medical exemptions from prescription charges. Extensive arrangements are already in place to ensure that people can access affordable prescriptions.","details":"The Government has no plans to change the list of medical conditions which provide for exemption from prescription charges. Arrangements are in place to ensure that prescriptions are affordable for everyone. Almost ninety per cent of prescription items are already free on the NHS in England and a number of prescription charge exemptions are in place, for which someone with a long-term condition like multiple sclerosis may qualify. Exemptions principally cover those with certain medical conditions, pregnant women and new mothers, children under 16, students under the age of 19 and in qualifying full time education, anyone over 60, and those on a low income or on certain income related benefits.\r\n \r\nPeople on low incomes can apply for help with their health costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme. The Scheme provides income related help to people who are not automatically exempt from charges but who may be entitled to full or partial help if they have a low income and savings below a defined limit.\r\n\r\nAnyone who has to pay NHS prescription charges and needs prescriptions regularly or needs many prescription items can save money with a prescription prepayment certificate (PPC). PPC holders pay no further charge at the point of dispensing and there is no limit to the number of items the holder may obtain through the certificate. There are two types of PPC – a three month PPC which costs £29.10 for three months and a twelve month PPC which costs £104 per year. A holder of a 12 month certificate can get all the prescriptions they need for just £2 per week. The quickest and easiest way to obtain a certificate is online. Importantly, this includes the option to spread the cost via direct debit over ten months for a twelve month certificate.\r\n \r\nAlthough extensive arrangements are in place to ensure people can access affordable prescriptions, we recognise that more could be done to promote them. The NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) has already taken forward a project to promote PPCs among patients and is now proactively working with specific pharmacy chains to raise awareness. It has also worked with the Citizens Advice Bureau to encourage them to talk to clients about PPCs if appropriate. PPCs are publicised on the NHS BSA’s website and on NHS Choices and in 2016-17 the NHS BSA sent out over 1.6 million posters and leaflets to promote the scheme in GP surgeries and pharmacies.\r\n\r\nThe NHS BSA is exploring ways to help patients navigate the “help with health costs” landscape better so that they can get appropriate help with their health costs. It is looking at the whole customer journey to identify areas where the process can be simplified and improved. This includes a move, where appropriate, to digitisation of the service. We are considering whether more can be done to support healthcare professionals with alerting patients to the help that might be available to them.\r\n\r\nThe NHS BSA has already developed an online tool to help patients to find out what help they may be able to get and where to apply for it. There have been over seventy five thousand users since it launched in September 2017 and the NHS BSA has received positive feedback on it. This checker has more recently been promoted on social media and has received national press coverage. \r\n\t\r\nThe current financial situation prevents the Government from making any significant changes to the prescription charging system. We will, however, ensure that the NHS BSA’s important work, publicising the extensive arrangements that are already in place continues.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-04-26T11:09:07.046Z","updated_at":"2018-04-26T11:09:07.046Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":203502,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203502.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make it illegal for any MP to lie in parliament or knowingly deceive the public.","background":"Repeal Parliamentary Privilege and reform Contempt of Parliament to make it illegal for MPs to lie or knowingly deceive the public in the execution of their duties. This must include campaigning and all statements made in Parliament or the media. Breach of this condition must trigger a by-election.","additional_details":"It should be a legal offence in the UK, as it is in some other countries and nations, to lie, wilfully mislead or knowingly deceive the public in execution of ones duties or whilst occupying a public office. This should include, but not be limited to; campaigning, liasing with the media or in any public forum. This should be covered by 'Misconduct in Public Office'. A breach of such conditions should result in dismissal from office, or at the very least a by-election for the seat in question.","state":"closed","signature_count":19833,"created_at":"2017-10-22T14:58:23.805Z","updated_at":"2018-05-21T09:53:45.068Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-27T15:36:40.106Z","closed_at":"2018-04-27T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-22T15:31:58.680Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-10T21:41:18.358Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-25T13:13:48.307Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"An important principle of the UK Parliament is that MPs are accountable to those who elect them. Responsibility for privilege is a matter for the House of Commons itself, rather than the Government.","details":"It is an important principle of the UK Parliament that Members of Parliament are accountable to those who elect them. It is therefore absolutely right that all Members of Parliament are fully accountable to their constituents for what they say and do and this is ultimately reflected at the ballot box. \r\n\r\nThere are strong rules that govern candidates prior to their election to Parliament. The Electoral Commission sets out the rules for candidates during General Election campaigns, such as the type of publicity material that candidates are able to use and the rules around making false statements. You can find further information on specific electoral offences at the following website: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/149729/List-of-electoral-offences.pdf \r\n\r\nOnce elected to Parliament, and as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, all MPs must abide by the seven principles of public life which form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office as set out in their respective Codes of Conduct. The seven principles of public life are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. It is a requirement that any holder of public office must be truthful and must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.\r\n\r\nUpon election, MPs are also subject to the House’s Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the application of the Code and further details are available on the Parliament website at https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/ \r\n\r\nUltimately, it is right that MPs are accountable to the electorate and should uphold the highest of standards. As such, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 was introduced to allow constituents to sign a petition for the recall of their MP if they are convicted of an offence, or are suspended from the House for at least 21 sitting days (or 28 calendar days if the suspension does not specify sitting days). A recall petition would be successful if signed by at least 10% of the registered voters in a constituency. The recall mechanism adds to the House of Commons’ own suite of disciplinary measures and gives constituents a say over their MP’s conduct between General Elections.\r\n\r\nOn the specific question of reforming the rules relating to Parliamentary privilege, the Government has always been clear that Parliamentary privilege is a matter for Parliament and that the responsibility for making any changes or reflecting on its effectiveness lies with Parliament and not the Government.\r\n\r\nParliamentary privilege refers to the range of freedoms and protections each House of Parliament needs to function effectively. In brief, it comprises the right of each House to control its own proceedings and precincts, and the right of those participating in parliamentary proceedings, whether or not they are Members, to speak freely without fear of legal liability or other reprisal.\r\n\r\nFollowing the inquiry by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013, the Government agreed with the Committee that there is no strong case for a comprehensive codification of Parliamentary privilege. However, as stated in the original Government response, this does not mean that steps cannot be taken both by Parliament and by Government to clarify the application of privilege where appropriate. You can find the full Government response here: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Parliamentary-Privilege/Cm%208771%20Gov%20response%20to%20JC%20on%20PP%20Dec%202013.pdf \r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-04-25T13:13:48.304Z","updated_at":"2018-04-25T13:13:48.304Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":215000,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/215000.json"},"attributes":{"action":"The UK Government to introduce a ban on all non-recyclable packaging from 2022.","background":"We call for action due to environmental crisis caused in the main by single-use plastics and demand the Government commit to an outright ban; most importantly in the food industry. \n\nWe also call on the Government to set a target date for eradication of non-degradable toxic plastics before 2030.","additional_details":"Single-use plastics can be eliminated by introducing bottle deposit schemes, pollution taxes and the removal from sale of all plastic bags, including 5p schemes.\n\nPlastic use has impact on a global scale as recent articles have highlighted. It has to stop now!\n\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/14/uk-to-investigate-human-health-impact-of-microplastics\n\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/12/microplastic-pollution-in-oceans-is-far-greater-than-thought-say-scientists","state":"open","signature_count":28728,"created_at":"2018-03-13T20:41:53.174Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T15:16:49.061Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-19T17:13:04.265Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-13T22:17:52.004Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-05T00:22:50.346Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-20T12:24:24.989Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tracey Armston-Harwood","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"There are no current plans to ban all non-recyclable packaging from 2022. However, our 25 Year Environment Plan sets out measures to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste.","details":"There are no current plans to ban all non-recyclable packaging from 2022. However, the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan sets out measures to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. We will do this through a four-point plan that takes action at each stage of the product lifecycle – production, consumption and end of life. At the production stage, this includes encouraging producers to take more responsibility for the environmental impact of their products and making sure plastic items are more carefully designed. At the consumer stage we want to reduce demand for single-use plastic. At the end of life stage, we will make it easier for people to recycle and increase the amount of plastic being recycled. \r\n\r\nMore detail, including future targets and milestones, will be announced in the forthcoming Resources and Waste Strategy. \r\nWe know that our producer responsibility waste management systems as they currently stand could be improved. That is why we have already committed in both our Clean Growth Strategy and our 25 Year Environment Plan to reforming the current systems to incentivise producers to take greater responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products, and to drive resource efficiency and increase the recycling of packaging waste.\r\n\r\nThe government has also confirmed that it will introduce a Deposit Return Scheme in England for single-use drinks containers, subject to consultation later this year. The consultation will look at the details of how such a scheme would work, alongside other measures to increase recycling rates.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, the government has launched a call for evidence seeking views on how the tax system or charges could reduce the waste from single use plastics. The closing date is 18 May 2018 and it can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tackling-the-plastic-problem.\r\n\r\nWorking through the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the Government is developing and delivering activities in support of the use of recycled materials in new products and activities to stimulate its demand. In September 2016, WRAP and an industry advisory group published a framework for greater consistency in recycling. Actions from this framework aim to identify opportunities to rationalise packaging formats (in particular plastic packaging) to those that are recyclable and for which there is a steady market, and to help local authorities to recycle a greater variety of plastics.\r\nThe government is committed to increasing recycling rates. Current policies and regulations have resulted in a significant increase in recycling over the last decade, with recycling of packaging rising from around 57.5% in 2006 to 64.7% in 2016, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We will continue to work with businesses, local authorities and waste managers to encourage the use of recycled materials where possible in products and activities to stimulate demand.\r\n\r\nAlmost all packaging materials are in theory recyclable. However, in practice, not all may be recycled for a number of reasons: for example it may not be economically viable for a local council to collect and recycle some formats; local reprocessing infrastructure may be limited, and there may be a lack of end markets for some types of recycled materials.\r\nPackaging has an important and positive role to play in reducing product damage, food waste and consumer safety. Keeping food fresher for longer through innovations such as vacuum packing and re-sealable packs has a significant impact on extending the life of products and reducing waste. If a product is wasted due to insufficient packaging then its disposal often has a greater environmental impact than the packaging itself. \r\n\r\nRetailers and their suppliers are encouraged to use materials that are widely collected for recycling wherever possible. For example, The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations place a legal obligation on large UK businesses that make or use packaging to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they place on the market is recovered and recycled. This creates an incentive for companies to use less packaging and to ensure that their packaging can be recycled at end of life as it will reduce their costs in complying with the Regulations. We have also set rising targets for business up to 2020, which will continue to increase the amount of packaging waste recycled.\r\n\r\nBusinesses are also required to reduce waste arising in the first place by using appropriately sized packaging. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations require businesses to ensure that all packaging does not exceed what is needed to make sure that the products are safe, hygienic and acceptable for both the packed product and for the consumer. These Regulations apply to those responsible for the packing or filling of products into packaging and those importing packed or filled packaging into the UK from elsewhere.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-04-20T12:24:24.987Z","updated_at":"2018-05-22T14:24:18.123Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":204550,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/204550.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Provide free flash glucose monitoring systems to type 1 diabetics on the NHS.","background":"Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease and cannot be cured. Sufferers need insulin daily via injections or a pump and have to do regular painful fingerprick blood tests. The flash system allows users to test glucose via a disc placed on the arm without puncturing skin every time, therefore no pain.","additional_details":"As of 1-11-17 this is available on the NHS, however, it seems to be a postcode lottery. The system enables the wearer to maintain better control of their diabetes by monitoring glucose for up-to 8hrs with each scan, which will long term cost the NHS less money as there won’t be as many complications. There is no break from this disease. Many parents have to test children during the night, with this system they can test by just touching the sensor with the scanner. Please share to make this free.","state":"closed","signature_count":10788,"created_at":"2017-11-06T18:44:32.791Z","updated_at":"2018-05-10T18:40:12.569Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-09T14:55:17.748Z","closed_at":"2018-05-09T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-07T00:14:21.018Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-02T13:33:20.604Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-20T10:09:04.679Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government has no plans to provide flash glucose monitoring systems free of charge to all Type 1 diabetic NHS patients. ","details":"People with diabetes insipidus or diabetes mellitus (except where treatment is by diet alone) - which includes type 1 and type 2 diabetes - are eligible for free NHS prescriptions if they hold a valid medical exemption certificate. However, patients will need to discuss the ongoing management of their condition with their healthcare professional and consider what is most suitable for them.\r\n\r\nWithin its financial constraints, the NHS is committed to providing access to new drugs and medical technologies. Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are responsible for commissioning diabetes services to meet the requirements of their population. In doing so, CCGs need to ensure that the services they provide are fit for purpose, reflect the needs of the local population and are based on the available evidence and take into account national guidelines. This should include consideration of access to the flash glucose monitoring system Freestyle Libre for people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes who might benefit from it.\r\n\r\nDr Partha Kar, Associate National Clinical Director for Diabetes, recently wrote to CCGs, urging them to take into account the advice of NHS England’s Regional Medicines Optimisation Committee (RMOC) (North) which has issued advice to Area Prescribing Committees about commissioning Freestyle Libre.\r\n\r\nOne of the long standing and fundamental principles of the NHS is that the best way to address local challenges is through clinically-led decision-making, as close to patients as possible. CCGs remain best placed to do this as they are clinically led organisations that have both the local knowledge and local accountability to make these complex commissioning decisions in the best interests of patients. \r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-04-20T10:09:04.677Z","updated_at":"2018-04-20T10:09:04.677Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":214478,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214478.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Anyone convicted of involvement in dog-fighting to receive a custodial sentence.","background":"Although dog-fighting in the UK has been illegal for many years it continues due to the underground nature of those involved. As part of the 'training regime' for fighter dogs, pets are often stolen from gardens etc to be used as 'bait dogs'. They are thrown to the fighter dogs to be torn apart.","additional_details":"Fining those convicted of being involved in dog-fighting is not a deterrent due to the vast amounts of money involved in dog-fighting circles. The only way to address this vile 'blood sport' is to give AUTOMATIC custodial sentences to ANYONE be it those who steal pets to be used as bait dogs, fighter dog owners, organisers and those who attend fights i.e. EVERYONE involved.","state":"open","signature_count":12194,"created_at":"2018-03-07T09:43:11.043Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T14:18:06.953Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-12T19:46:03.396Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-07T10:19:28.510Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-01T07:22:22.242Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-19T12:53:08.432Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Paul Christian - Protect All Wildlife","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government has already announced their intention to increase the maximum penalty for offences related to dog fighting from 6 months’ imprisonment to 5 years’ imprisonment.","details":"The Government abhors acts of cruelty to animals and condemns the actions of anyone involved in illegal dog fighting. That is one of the reasons why the government announced in September 2017 that it would bring forward legislation to increase the maximum penalties for causing any unnecessary suffering to an animal, including such offences relating to dog fighting, from 6 months’ imprisonment to 5 years’ imprisonment in addition to the existing option of an unlimited fine. In doing so the government will give the courts sufficient powers to deal effectively with a range of animal fighting offences in a way which reflects the seriousness of the offence.\r\n\r\nSentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts taking into account the circumstances of each case.\r\n\r\nWith regard to sentencing for offences of dog fighting, the court will decide the sentence in each case subject to the maximum that Parliament has provided and any relevant guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing must be proportionate to the offence committed, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-04-19T12:53:08.429Z","updated_at":"2018-04-19T12:53:08.429Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":216928,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216928.json"},"attributes":{"action":"An urgent debate on strategies for effectively combating gun and knife crime","background":"As of the date of this petition there have been 50 gun/knife related killings in our capital. The ONS states that knife offences rose by 23% in the Capital, a higher murder rate than New York. Links below will remind you of some of those who have fallen victim to date this year and in 2017.","additional_details":"Here are some national headlines regarding this issue, which is now at crisis point. Please forward this petition to your network.\r\n\r\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/04/killed-in-2018-londons-victims-of-violence#img-2 \r\n\r\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/membership/ng-interactive/2017/mar/28/beyond-the-blade-marking-the-death-of-every-child-and-teen-by-a-knife-in-2017 \r\n\r\nhttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/gun-and-knife-crime-soaring-in-london-official-figures-show-a3513366.html","state":"open","signature_count":12657,"created_at":"2018-04-05T13:08:29.682Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:30:22.388Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-04-06T19:22:05.567Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-05T13:22:19.845Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-09T19:05:09.558Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-19T09:33:55.614Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Rev Les Isaac OBE","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"This tragic loss of life is not acceptable. In response to the recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicide the Government published on 9 April the Serious Violence Strategy. ","details":"The Government is determined to break the deadly cycle of violence that devastates the lives of individuals, families and communities. In response to the recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicide, the Government published the Serious Violence Strategy. The Strategy outlines an ambitious programme working with a range of Government Departments and partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services, and victim services. \r\n\r\nThe strategy makes clear that our approach is not solely focused on law enforcement, very important as that is, but depends also on partnerships across a number of sectors. In particular, it needs the support of communities thinking about what they can do themselves to help prevent violent crime happening in the first place and how they can support measures to get young people and young adults involved in positive activities. \r\n\r\nWe know intervening early can help us catch young people before they go down the wrong path, encouraging them to make positive choices and that is why the strategy represents a step change in the way we think and respond and in particular, a shift to early intervention and prevention steering young people away from crime in the first place and put in place measures to tackle the root causes of the problem.\r\n \r\nAction in the strategy is centred on the following key themes:\r\n\r\n•\tTackling county lines and misuse of drugs; \r\n•\tEarly intervention and prevention;\r\n•\tSupporting communities and local partnerships; and\r\n•\tLaw enforcement and the criminal justice response\r\n\r\nThe strategy sets out a range of key actions we will take to tackle serious violence, building on the significant programmes of work already in place to tackle knife crime, gun crime and the acid attacks action plan. The strategy includes over 60 specific commitments for action in the coming months and years ahead including creation of a new National County Lines Coordination Centre, creation of a new Early Intervention Youth Fund and measures to strengthen local partnerships and the multi-agency response to this issue. \r\n\r\nThe Home Secretary will be overseeing implementation of the strategy through a refocused Inter-Ministerial Group on the Serious Violence Strategy and through creation of a new Serious Violence Taskforce. The Taskforce will include key representatives from national and local government, Police and Crime Commissioners and key delivery partners including representatives from health, education and industry. \r\n\r\nWe will introduce an Offensive Weapons Bill to include a ban on the sale of the most dangerous corrosive products to under-18s, make it a criminal offence to possess corrosive substances in a public place and bring in tough restrictions on online sales of knives, as well as announcing plans to publicly consult on extending stop and search powers to enable the police to search for, and seize, acid from people carrying it in public without good reason.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-04-19T09:33:55.610Z","updated_at":"2018-04-19T09:33:55.610Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":205332,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/205332.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Declare the 2016 referendum vote null and void due to foreign interference","background":"It is clear now that foreign influence and inaccurate facts were highly influential on the electorate during the Brexit referendum and therefore the result should be declared as null and void.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":29136,"created_at":"2017-11-16T08:12:42.345Z","updated_at":"2018-05-22T19:21:28.489Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-11-21T16:09:22.698Z","closed_at":"2018-05-21T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-16T21:14:04.074Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-21T17:02:46.303Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.088Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in our history. The Government is clear that the result should be respected. There has been no evidence of successful interference.","details":"We treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes extremely seriously. There has been no evidence of successful interference, but we take any allegations of interference in UK democratic processes by a foreign government extremely seriously. \r\n\r\nThe Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law, registering political parties, and regulating the spending of and donations and loans to political parties and other campaigners. The Commission is independent of Government and accountable to Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission has confirmed that the 2016 referendum was a well run poll.\r\n \r\nLegislation is in place to ensure that donations can only be accepted from a “permissible donor”, which includes individuals on the electoral roll, companies registered in the UK and carrying on business here, and a number of other UK-registered bodies. \r\n\r\nThe UK is also actively engaging with international partners, industry and civil society to tackle the threat of disinformation and propaganda where this is relevant to any potential foreign interference in elections.The Government’s recently published Safety Strategy sets out how we will work collaboratively with industry to address these issues online. This also forms part of the work under the Digital Charter, which aims to ensure that the UK is the safest place in the world to be online.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.084Z","updated_at":"2018-04-18T17:04:16.084Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":215228,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/215228.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give all women the choice of an Induction at 41 weeks of Pregnancy.","background":"Our son Archie was stillborn in June 2017 at 41+5. He had died only hours before I had gone into labour and was born a perfect 7lb11. Had I been induced with Archie at 41 weeks he most certainly would have been born a healthy baby boy. We now have to live everyday with the grief of losing our son.","additional_details":"Eight babies are Stillborn everyday in the UK. Evidence proves that a pregnancy continued past 41 weeks has a dramatically increased risk of a stillbirth. Due to this evidence the USA induce all women at 41 weeks.\r\nUnfortunately we have no such law in the UK and it is still currently procedure to let mothers continue to 42 weeks. The result of this is that the UK still has one of the highest percentages of stillbirth in the world today. \r\nHelp us save lives of unborn children in the UK.","state":"open","signature_count":41569,"created_at":"2018-03-15T13:51:46.583Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T11:23:32.383Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-26T09:00:18.368Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-15T15:06:57.739Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-28T12:47:22.214Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.735Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Victoria Birtles","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"In line with NICE clinical guidance [CG70], women with uncomplicated pregnancies should usually be offered induction of labour between 41+0 and 42+0 weeks to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy.","details":"We are very sorry to hear about the loss of your son, Archie, and send our sincere condolences to you and your family. We are committed to reducing the rates of stillbirth in England and improving maternity outcomes for women and babies. \r\n\r\nThe decision to induce pregnancy is one that must be taken following careful consideration between the woman and her obstetrician. In line with current NICE clinical guidance, women with uncomplicated pregnancies should usually be offered induction of labour between 41+0 and 42+0 weeks to avoid the risks of prolonged pregnancy. Decisions on induction of labour should also take into account women’s preferences and local circumstances. We have no plans to introduce legislation to induce all women at 41 weeks.\r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines [CG70] on induction of labour can be found at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/chapter/1-guidance \r\n\r\nThe NHS is a safe place to give birth, however the Government and NHS England are acutely aware that more can be done to improve safe outcomes for women and their babies. The Secretary of State’s ambition is to halve the national rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth by 2025, with a 20% reduction in these rates by 2020. A second ambition is to reduce the national pre-term birth rate from 8% to 6% by 2025. \r\n\r\nNHS England’s Maternity Transformation Programme supports the Secretary of State’s ambitions, and recommends that all NHS Trusts with maternity services implement ‘Saving Babies’ Lives: A Care Bundle for Reducing Stillbirth’, published in March 2016. The Care Bundle guidance brings together four key elements of care based on the best available evidence and clinical practice, including reducing smoking in pregnancy; risk assessment and surveillance for fetal growth restriction; raising awareness of reduced fetal movement; and effective fetal monitoring during labour. During 2018/19, NHS trusts with maternity services have been asked to demonstrate compliance with all 4 elements of the ‘Saving Babies’ Lives’ care bundle as part of the Clinical Negligence for Trusts Scheme administered by NHS Resolution. Further information on this is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safer-maternity-care-progress-and-next-steps (see page 32 of Maternity Safety Strategy 2017).\r\n \r\nAn academic study by University of Manchester, evaluating the efficacy of the Care Bundle in 20 hospital sites will be published later in 2018. Following this, the Care Bundle guidance will be updated to reflect new evidence and best practice. \r\n \r\nOverall NHS England is making good progress in reducing the number of stillbirth. It is on track to deliver the 20% reduction by 2020 and has already seen a 16% reduction since 2010. \r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.733Z","updated_at":"2018-04-17T15:17:13.733Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":207878,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207878.json"},"attributes":{"action":"PIP should be administered and decided by the NHS, not the DWP/contracting firms","background":"Currently the DWP handles the deliberation of PIP and ESA. Disability is a state of being dealing with health, not work and pensions. The decisions for any disability related payments or dictates should be handled by the government's experts (i.e. health professionals) in the NHS, not DWP.","additional_details":"In August this year the UN criticised the UK government for its treatment of people with disability and stripping people of their livelihoods, dignity and being. This has led to an increase of post-decision making unexplained deaths of people with disabilities. The DWP is not concerned with helping people or listening to experts on health related issues with relying on 'for profit' companies making decisions on people with disabilities. The NHS needs to be the decision making body for PIP.","state":"open","signature_count":17050,"created_at":"2017-12-17T16:22:56.327Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T13:29:10.745Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-20T12:12:06.683Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-17T22:45:40.242Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-02T15:14:49.993Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-16T12:13:29.886Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Antony Redman","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"DWP is committed to ensuring those with health conditions are assessed fairly for ESA and PIP. They provide tailored support for individuals based on assessed functional needs rather than a diagnosis.","details":"The Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and determined that support should be focused on people who need it most. We want to enable disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. We are also committed to ensuring those with health conditions and disabilities are assessed fairly for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) to ensure they receive the right level of support. \r\n\r\nPIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, provides a non-contributory, non means-tested, tax free contribution towards the extra costs that people with long-term health conditions and disabilities face and is based on the impact of conditions and impairments on individuals’ everyday lives.\r\n\r\nESA provides financial support to those that face barriers to work. The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for ESA focuses on the functional capability of claimants to work and on the impact of mental health conditions on functional capability. The premise of the WCA is that eligibility for benefits should not be based on a person’s condition, but rather on the way that condition limits their ability to function. \r\n\r\nThe assessments for both PIP and ESA were developed using multi-layered processes involving disabled people, representatives of disabled people and health professionals. Individual disability assessments are carried out by suitably trained Healthcare Professionals working within a quality assured, managed environment. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has set clear requirements on the professions, skills, experience and training of the Healthcare Professionals that our assessment providers can use to carry out PIP and ESA assessments and all are registered with an appropriate professional body such as the General Medical Council (GMC), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) or the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). \r\n\r\nHealthcare Professionals do not need to be an expert in a condition to assess the impact of a condition on a claimant’s (i) capability for work or work related activity in ESA, or (ii) daily living activities and mobility in PIP. The assessment is not designed to diagnose or give a clinical prognosis. Instead, the emphasis is on ensuring that the Healthcare Professionals are experts in disability analysis, focusing on the effects of health conditions and impairments on the individual claimant’s daily life. The role differs from the therapeutic role of healthcare professionals in reaching a diagnosis and/or planning treatment.\r\n\r\nIn addition to their profession DWP recognises the importance of ensuring individuals also have sufficient experience, skills and training. All PIP and ESA Healthcare Professionals must complete a comprehensive training programme approved by DWP and pass an assessment of competence before they can carry out assessments. \r\n\r\nThe National Health Service (NHS) is the national healthcare system for the UK, and is not designed to administer welfare benefits. Although doctors are responsible for issuing medical statements to patients, they are not responsible for making the decision on eligibility for benefit. For example, GPs and their representative body, the British Medical Association, have made it clear that they do not want to be guardians of the benefit system. The primary role of the GP or hospital doctor is to diagnose and treat any medical conditions that the patient presents to them and a clinician does not routinely consider the functional restrictions or disabling effects of the medical conditions that they treat. They are unlikely to have received specific training in assessing disabilities in their medical education, and may have difficulty in giving an accurate assessment or forming an opinion in relation to the functional restrictions experienced by their patient. They are also unlikely to have any knowledge of the legislative requirements in relation to benefit entitlement. \r\n\r\nDecisions on both PIP and ESA are made by DWP Decision Makers based on the advice received from the assessment provider together with the evidence supplied by the claimant in their questionnaire and any additional evidence they submit or which has been requested.\r\n\r\nMany claimants to PIP and ESA present with life-limiting conditions meaning that some may sadly die during the course of claiming or receiving benefit. However, we don’t believe there is any causal link between claiming benefit and death.\r\n\r\nThe Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international human rights treaty of the United Nations (UN) intended to protect the rights and dignity of persons with Disabilities. All nations signed up to the convention are subject to a periodic review as part of the standard UN reporting process. We were disappointed that the concluding observations of the UN did not accurately reflect the evidence we gave to the committee.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Work and Pensions ","created_at":"2018-04-16T12:13:29.883Z","updated_at":"2018-04-16T12:13:29.883Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":215204,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/215204.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern, and Martin Sellner entry to the UK.","background":"Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern, and Martin Sellner have all been detained and removed from the UK recently because of their political beliefs and/or their intention to meet other political activists. They are peaceful and no one peaceful should be banned for their political beliefs.","additional_details":"Freedom of speech is a principle to protect the rights of individuals to express their views. This is essential for freedom and a healthy democracy. Ideas should stand or fall on their own merits - not get banned. Support this petition even if you disagree with the views of the people named.\r\n\r\nhttps://twitter.com/BrittPettibone/status/973309206940942337/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\u0026ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fblogs-trending-43393035\r\nhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYFSlRuXcAEzS7D.jpg","state":"open","signature_count":12517,"created_at":"2018-03-15T10:52:34.991Z","updated_at":"2018-05-23T18:52:27.984Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-22T13:47:54.636Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-17T14:29:25.878Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-28T18:02:05.770Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-16T09:50:00.912Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Charles Daniel Goodhand","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. ","details":"Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights define us as a society. The Government is committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is already in place to protect these fundamental rights. However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred. UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so - regardless of whether others agree with the views which are being expressed. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is a qualified right however, which means that it can be restricted for certain purposes to the extent necessary in a democratic society.\r\n \r\nThe Home Office is unable to comment on individual cases. On the whole the Government takes a robust stance against individuals whose presence in this country might not be conducive to the public good. Any individual whose presence in the UK is deemed not conducive to the public good will be refused entry, on a case-by-case basis.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-04-16T09:50:00.910Z","updated_at":"2018-04-16T09:50:00.910Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":214119,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214119.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make Universities UK subject to the Freedom of Information Act.","background":"We ask that the appropriate Government Minister make an order under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 5(1) designating Universities UK as a public authority, so making Universities UK subject to the Freedom of Information Act.","additional_details":"Universities are rightly subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Universities UK is an organisation consisting of the heads of higher education institutions defining itself as “the voice of universities”. In doing so Universities UK functions as a public organisation (and of a public nature), and so should also be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Other similar sector-wide organisations have been so designated by this method.","state":"open","signature_count":12981,"created_at":"2018-03-02T10:15:21.761Z","updated_at":"2018-05-21T13:22:24.483Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-05T22:20:05.528Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-02T16:01:03.872Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-10T13:04:15.326Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-16T09:14:49.573Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sean Murphy","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Universities UK does not meet the criteria for being added to the scope of the Freedom of Information Act as set out in sections 4 and 5 of the legislation, and there are no plans to alter these. ","details":"Schedule 1 to the FOI Act lists bodies that are covered by the FOI Act. For a body to be added to this schedule they must meet certain conditions set out in Section 4 of the FOI Act.\r\n\r\nBriefly, they must be established by either a Minister of the Crown, a Government Department or by legislation, and appointments to the body must be made by the same. Under Section 5 of the FOI Act, the Government can designate as a public authority any body which appears to exercise functions of a public nature or is providing a function of a public authority under contract. \r\n\r\nUniversities UK do not meet the above conditions and are therefore not\r\ncovered by the FOI Act. The Government has currently no plans to alter the criteria for bodies that should be covered by the FOI Act.\r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-04-16T09:14:49.571Z","updated_at":"2018-04-16T09:14:49.571Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":209573,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209573.json"},"attributes":{"action":"All jurors in rape trials to complete compulsory training about rape myths","background":"Research shows that jurors accept commonly held rape myths resulting in many incorrect not guilty verdicts. Rapists are walking free from court, although evidence is robust. This ruins lives. Rape conviction in the UK is very low. Compared to other crimes conviction is 21% lower.","additional_details":"Research by Rape Crisis \u0026 Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, finds that jurors often accept rape myths \u0026 thus acquit rapists who are in fact guilty. 66% of jurors do not understand judges' legal directions which attempt to dispel rape myths, but fail. Jurors need proper rape myth training prior to \u0026 throughout trials. Info: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsvsrealities.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_myth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39182779","state":"open","signature_count":16096,"created_at":"2018-01-14T13:38:44.312Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T15:31:07.127Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-17T19:10:45.490Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-14T14:10:22.437Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-21T13:07:20.384Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-12T15:50:32.090Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Abigail J Smith","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Ministry of Justice takes rape offences very seriously. The Senior Judiciary are working to consider the most effective way to provide sufficient information to jurors sitting on a rape trial. ","details":"Rape is an extremely serious criminal offence which can lead to lifelong trauma for victims and their families. The Government is committed to creating a safe environment in which cases can be heard and justice can be delivered.\r\n \r\nThe number of rape convictions have risen by nearly 60% in the last decade, but we know more must be done, to ensure consistent just outcomes. Active steps have been taken to ensure that rape cases are dealt with appropriately and sensitively. Crown Prosecutors and judicial office holders must undergo specialist training before they are authorised to take on rape cases. Most professionals involved in rape trials will therefore be well attuned to the challenges surrounding cases including the issues of rape myths. We are also rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination for vulnerable witnesses to ensure that they can give their best evidence.\r\n \r\nJuries must of course consist of twelve randomly selected individuals. They will therefore bring their own ideas and experiences to their analysis of the facts of the case. We know that rape myths exist within our society, and therefore jurors could believe these myths and that this could affect their interpretations of the facts of the case. However, there is little empirical evidence, which is needed to discern the impact of rape myths on juries and ensure that appropriate measures are taken.\r\n \r\nEnsuring that the balance is struck between jurors understanding rape myths, without encroaching on the rights to a fair trial of the defendant is not a straightforward task. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, in his capacity as Head of Criminal Justice, is working with other senior criminal judges to consider the most effective way of providing sufficient information to jurors sitting on a rape trial.\r\n\r\nAs part of the work on how best to inform jurors, rather than rely on anecdote, it is essential that appropriate research is conducted with those who have sat on juries initially to assess where there may be issues in relation to rape myths. This research has never been undertaken before and is a complex task that has been entrusted to Professor Cheryl Thomas, the country’s leading academic expert on juries and jury research. She will gather data from experienced jurors at a range of courts around the country. This will give the senior judiciary a detailed insight into where there may be any issues and will mean they are in a position to consider how jurors may best be informed in rape cases. \r\n\r\nMinistry of Justice","created_at":"2018-04-12T15:50:32.086Z","updated_at":"2018-04-12T15:50:32.086Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":211905,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/211905.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ensure the UK leaves all EU defence rules, policies and structures on 29/03/19.","background":"Since November 2016, the UK has joined all parts of the EU’s \"defence union\" except one, without any vote by MPs. These include finance, command centre and a central budget.\r\nIf the UK stays in them or if any of them go into an exit agreement, as Govt has proposed, the UK will not have left the EU.","additional_details":"http://veteransforbritain.uk/brexit-and-defence-integration-a-short-summary/\r\n\r\nhttp://veteransforbritain.uk/the-seven-ways-eu-defence-union-binds-the-uk-in-terms-of-brexit/\r\n\r\nhttp://veteransforbritain.uk/pesco-avoided-but-risks-remain/\r\n\r\nhttp://veteransforbritain.uk/dexeus-defence-partnership-paper-is-a-grave-mistake-and-gives-the-eu-control/\r\n\r\nhttp://veteransforbritain.uk/vfb-chairman-speech/\r\n\r\nhttps://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-uk-is-stuck-in-a-quagmire-over-eu-defence-union","state":"open","signature_count":14636,"created_at":"2018-02-04T20:43:53.030Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:01:06.613Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-16T14:07:23.840Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-05T11:04:36.402Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-19T15:44:57.081Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-10T16:07:55.953Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"David Banks","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will respect that decision. We want to develop a new partnership with the EU that builds on our existing security relationship.","details":"We have always said that Parliament must be fully involved in shaping our exit from the EU. The Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. This vote will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship. If Parliament supports the resolution to proceed with the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship, the Government will bring forward a Withdrawal Agreement \u0026 Implementation Bill to give the Withdrawal Agreement domestic legal effect.\r\n\r\nWhere it is necessary to implement future agreements the Government will introduce further legislation where it is needed, ensuring further opportunities for proper parliamentary scrutiny. \r\n\r\nWith regards to our future security partnership with the EU, in Munich, the Prime Minister set out the UK’s unconditional commitment to European security. It has always been the case that our security at home is best advanced through global cooperation, working with institutions that support that, including the EU. We want to develop a new partnership with the EU that builds on the depth and breadth of our existing security relationship; from foreign and defence policy, to law enforcement and criminal judicial cooperation.\r\n\r\nOur success will also depend on a breadth of partnerships that extend beyond cooperation with the EU. We must develop more bilateral cooperation between European nations, build the ad-hoc groupings that allow us to counter terrorism and hostile state threats, and we must ensure a reformed, modernised NATO remains the cornerstone of our shared security.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAlongside this, the UK remains committed to using its assets, capabilities and influence alongside the EU and our European partners. Our cooperation in this regard is not just vital because our people face common threats, but also because we share a deep, historic belief in the same values - the values of peace, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.\r\n\r\nThe UK therefore seeks to develop a deep and special partnership with the EU that goes beyond existing third country arrangements, and which builds on the breadth and depth of our shared interests and values. This must be a partnership that underpins practical collaboration to tackle real world challenges.\r\n\r\nAs part of this cooperation, where it is in the mutual interest, the UK would be ready to participate in EU missions and operations. However, we would require a level of involvement in the development and planning of such missions and operations, commensurate with the scale of deployment and the operational risk attached. \r\n\r\nIn other areas, a more informal relationship could work for both parties. For instance, we will no longer be party to Common Foreign and Security Policy, and will pursue an independent foreign policy. But we should maintain regular close consultations on foreign and security policy issues, and align where it is in our mutual interest. An informal, political relationship would enable cooperation but retain the autonomy of both the UK and the EU.\r\n\r\nWe intend, therefore, to approach negotiations with flexibility and practical benefit in mind. We are not seeking a one-size-fits-all approach to institutional engagement, which we consider could be counter-productive. \r\n\r\nWe want the EU to succeed in its foreign and security policy goals, which we share, as made clear in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 and the 2016 EU Global Strategy.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-04-10T16:07:55.949Z","updated_at":"2018-04-10T16:07:55.949Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":208776,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/208776.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Abolish the subsidy on food and drink in the Palace of Westminster restaurants.","background":"In 2016, the food subsidy in Parliament cost taxpayers around £3.7 million. This use of taxpayers’ money must stop and the funds diverted to public services where it is needed. MPs earn significant wages and citizens who themselves struggle to buy food should not be forced to help feed MPs as well.","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":105741,"created_at":"2018-01-03T11:27:05.960Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T15:37:06.843Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-12T11:15:39.279Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-03T14:15:55.109Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-15T15:52:48.521Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.101Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-04-02T15:46:13.666Z","scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":"2018-04-18T13:04:52.370Z","creator_name":"Kathleen Price","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Responsibility for catering in the House of Commons is a\r\nmatter for the House of Commons Commission, not for the Government. The House of Commons Commission is working to reduce catering costs.","details":"Decisions relating to the budget for, and charges within, the House of Commons Catering Services are matters for which the House of Commons have overall responsibility, and not the Government. \r\n\r\nThe House of Commons Authorities have outlined that catering services for the House of Commons are provided by an in-house team who do not provide a subsidised service, though the cost of running the service means that it runs at a loss. It is important to note that while in some venues the cost of providing the service exceeds the income received in sales, other venues in the Commons make a profit which contributes to reducing overall costs. As shown in their transparency publication\r\n( https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/) these costs have fallen considerably over the last two Parliaments and have halved since 2010.\r\n\r\nCustomers of the House of Commons Catering Services include some of the 650 MPs but also around 14,500 other pass-holders, many of whom are staff on lower wages that work irregular hours. In addition, members of the public and non pass\r\nholding visitors to Parliament also have access to these services. The irregular hours and the unpredictability of Parliamentary business contribute to increasing the net\r\ncost of providing a catering service. To offset this many of the restaurants, dining room facilities and their staff, are used to cater for private events at times when they are not required by the House. This is one of a number of measures used to reduce\r\ncosts.\r\n\r\nAlthough the responsibility for the catering service is that of the House of Commons, and not the Government, the Leader of the House of Commons is personally committed to keeping these costs as low as possible.\r\n\r\nLeader of the House","created_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z","updated_at":"2018-04-06T14:28:16.097Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":null,"transcript_url":"","video_url":"","debate_pack_url":"","overview":"The Committee has made the following statement on its decision:\r\n\r\n“The Petitions Committee has decided not to schedule a debate on this petition. \r\n \r\nThis is because the petition is based on a misunderstanding. It argues that the cost of food and drink in Parliament should be higher, because MPs are well paid. \r\n \r\nIt’s not only MPs who can buy food and drink in the House of Commons. Catering services are also available to everyone else who works in the House of Commons, including staff who earn lower wages and work irregular hours. Some outlets are also available to visitors and members of the public. MPs make up only a very small proportion of the people who can buy food and drink in Parliament. \r\n \r\nYou can find out more about the cost of catering in the House of Commons here:\r\n \r\nhttps://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/transparency-publications/hoc-transparency-publications/catering-services/transparency-reporting-catering-services/”\r\n\r\n"}}},{"type":"petition","id":201415,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201415.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Allow Martial Arts to be on the GCSE/A Level syllabus.","background":"Martial arts such as judo, taekwondo and karate have been dropped from approved activities as part of the GCSE and A Level curriculum. Martial arts promote self discipline, self confidence, respect as well as an excellent way to improve all round fitness and not to mention teaching self defence.","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":11009,"created_at":"2017-09-25T03:49:01.928Z","updated_at":"2018-04-11T12:55:18.229Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-02T12:05:53.918Z","closed_at":"2018-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-25T05:44:58.040Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-21T18:51:27.694Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-03T15:28:13.488Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Activities assessed in GCSE, AS and A level physical education must meet regulations set by Ofqual, to ensure reliable assessment. The government will review the activity list in autumn 2018.","details":"The government published subject content for reformed physical education (PE) GCSE, AS and A level in January 2015. The content included a list of activities (team or individual sports) in which students could be assessed as part of these qualifications. Activities assessed as part of GCSE, AS and A level physical education must meet the regulations set by the independent qualifications regulator, Ofqual, to ensure reliable assessment. These regulations include the content requirements set out by the DfE, which themselves include the PE activity list.\r\n\r\nThe activity list includes a set of five key considerations developed by awarding organisations, which were applied to each activity in order to ensure parity and rigour. These can be found at: \r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447738/GCSE_activity_list_for_PE.pdf. \r\n\r\nActivities were included on the list based solely upon whether they met these considerations and their suitability as a means of assessing students’ skills as part of a PE qualification. The list does not represent a view on the legitimacy or value of particular activities.\r\n\r\nThe government consulted on the activity list in 2014. This was part of the formal consultation process on proposed subject content for qualifications introduced from September 2016 and can be found at:\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397672/Reformed_GCSE_and_A_level_subject_content_Government_Response.pdf.\r\n\r\nAs previously announced, the government will review the PE activity list in autumn 2018, following the first examinations for the new PE GCSEs and A levels this summer. We will agree this process with the exam boards and Ofqual and provide details closer to the time. The review will apply to published subject content with which all exams boards are required to comply. \r\n\r\nThe reforms to PE qualifications should not be a barrier to talented young sportsmen and women achieving their potential. All reformed PE qualifications have been designed to be accessible to students with a range of abilities and experience, and to test the appropriate knowledge, skills and understanding within the format of a general qualification. Schools are free to organise and deliver a diverse and challenging PE curriculum which best suits the needs of their students and the Government is actively encouraging schools to deliver a wide variety of sports, including Olympic sports. PE remains a compulsory subject at all four key stages in the national curriculum. Schools should make sure that all students are given opportunities to develop their PE and sport skills and we are continuing to invest in school sport through a number of cross-government initiatives. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-04-03T15:28:13.486Z","updated_at":"2018-04-03T15:28:13.486Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200427,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200427.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Don't leave the EU","background":"It would be a colossal mistake for the UK to leave the EU. The Government is floundering in the Brexit negotiations and the country would be poorer in every sense outside of the EU. And It would affect young people's lives greatly and this could become Regrexit.","additional_details":"The referendum result should be disregarded as so many people who voted to leave were tricked by the lies of the Brexit camp. So much for democracy if people have been hoodwinked. We need to show the Government that this Brexit disaster is not \"the will of the people\" by calling on them in sufficient numbers to stop it. I don't think enough people realised quite how complicated it would be to leave the EU, so here's a better idea: Stay in. The EU would welcome us back with open arms.","state":"closed","signature_count":10989,"created_at":"2017-09-15T13:49:51.906Z","updated_at":"2018-05-23T13:59:28.255Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-19T10:02:53.817Z","closed_at":"2018-03-19T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-15T17:25:35.377Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T10:50:07.096Z","government_response_at":"2018-04-03T11:23:31.463Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will respect their decision. Real progress has been made to deliver a smooth and orderly exit.","details":"The British people voted to leave the EU and the Government is clear that we will deliver on their decision. As the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, the UK is seeking the broadest and deepest possible agreement with the EU. The Government's vision is of a UK that is a champion of free trade based on high standards - a Britain which forges a bold and comprehensive economic partnership with its neighbours in the EU, and reaches out beyond to strike trade agreements with nations across the globe.\r\n\r\nSignificant progress has been made in the negotiations as set out in the Joint Report on progress which the UK and EU published in December. The UK and EU have also agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period. This will give businesses and citizens the time they need to put in place the new arrangements required, as the terms of our future partnership become clearer.\r\n\r\nThe implementation period will also establish a bridge to the new UK's partnership with the EU. After 29 March 2019, the UK will be able to step out into the world and forge its own way by negotiating, ratifying and signing trade deals across the globe.\r\n\r\nGood progress has been made on the wider Withdrawal Agreement. The sections on Citizens' Rights and the Financial Settlement have been locked down. On Northern Ireland, where there is more to do before the deal can be finalised, both the EU and the UK have reaffirmed their commitment to the December Joint Report. Both sides are committed to reaching agreement on the entire Withdrawal Agreement by October.\r\n\r\nThe EU has now adopted guidelines for the next phase of negotiations on future EU-UK relations. The UK Government will continue to approach the negotiations with energy and ambition and will work with the EU to develop a strong future economic and security partnership.\r\n\r\nWe will continue to work together to deliver the best possible outcome for all our citizens.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Exiting the European Union","created_at":"2018-04-03T11:23:31.460Z","updated_at":"2018-04-03T11:23:31.460Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":213108,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213108.json"},"attributes":{"action":"The Government must introduce an independent regulator for English football","background":"We urge the Government to introduce an independent regulator for English football, charged with ensuring the highest possible standards of governance for all clubs","additional_details":"Full background information can be found at http://www.blackpoolsupporterstrust.com/Site/LatestNews.aspx?NewId=117","state":"open","signature_count":14256,"created_at":"2018-02-17T12:39:46.689Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T16:39:51.940Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-22T13:46:23.724Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-17T13:09:29.048Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T09:32:47.261Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-29T13:44:30.262Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Andy Higgins","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"HMG believes sports are best governed by modern, transparent, accountable and representative governing bodies, able to act decisively in the long-term interest of each sport and its participants.","details":"HMG is aware of concerns that have been raised about the Football Association’s ability to govern the game effectively. As the national governing body for football in England, the FA is responsible for regulating, promoting and developing the game at every level.\r\n\r\nThe Sports Governance Code that came into force on 1 April 2017 applies to all sporting bodies in receipt of public funding from Sport England and UK Sport. It challenges the FA and all other governing bodies to demonstrate that they meet the highest standards of governance and regulation. The Code requires evidence that sports bodies operate efficiently and successfully while being transparent and representative of society.\r\n\r\nWe therefore welcome the reforms the FA has made to comply with the Code that include reducing its Board in size from 12 to 10 members, ensuring a more even gender split, and ensuring at least a quarter of its members are independent of football club interests. We believe that moving to a thoroughly strategic, accountable and representative Board with the right mix of skills, diversity and experience is the key to unlocking the long-term potential of football in this country, from grassroots up to the national teams.\r\n\r\nThe reform of the FA Council; changes to tenure, and the addition of new members will help ensure this body is also more representative of the modern game. The principle that all FA Committees should report to the Board is one we strongly support and is a requirement under the Code.\r\n\r\nWe are comfortable that the actions the FA has already taken and further actions it has agreed to implement to comply with the Sports Governance Code will improve its governance. This will continue to be monitored and managed through funding conditions which require ongoing compliance with the Code.\r\n\r\nThe Premier League (PL) and the English Football League (EFL) are not in receipt of public funding and therefore they and the clubs in their leagues are not regulated through the mandatory condition of funding which requires compliance with the Sports Governance Code. However, the PL and the EFL have established their own regulatory frameworks which clubs are required to comply with in order to participate in their respective leagues.\r\n\r\nIndeed we welcome the fact that the financial state of football clubs in this country is better now than at any time over the last 20 years. Measures introduced in recent years include the Leagues requiring business cases and proof of funds from club owners, a working relationship between clubs and HMRC over tax owed, and the adoption of financial fair play rules. Together these have helped curb club debt and promoted sustainability. However, football clubs and the football authorities cannot be complacent. They must keep these rules under constant review.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, with regard to ownership of clubs, the onus for the football authorities is ensuring the criteria (known as the ‘Owners and Directors (ODT) Test’) as to whom can hold a controlling interest in clubs is as robust as possible, that due diligence is carried out on owners and conditions on what they can and cannot do are laid down from the start. We are pleased the football authorities have agreed to keep the ODT test under regular review and to listen to supporters’ concerns. This promise was outlined in the report of the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership and Engagement published in January 2016.\r\n\r\nWe are clear that we do not expect that the PL or EFL’s rulebooks will be superseded but it is right that policy-making on disciplinary issues sits outside the Leagues. The Football Regulatory Authority for example, is a body responsible for regulatory, disciplinary and rule-making for football played in England. The membership of the body is jointly made up of representatives from the national game, professional game and independent non-executives. \r\n\r\nThe Independent Football Ombudsman is also there to receive and adjudicate on complaints which have failed to be resolved by football clubs or the football authorities. The IFO is an important part of football’s self-regulatory system.\r\n\r\nWe accept that football governance must keep evolving if it is to keep pace with the challenges of the modern game and the global commercial attractiveness of English football. The Sports Governance Code helps, but the FA and other football bodies responsible for regulation of the game should continue to review how they are set up to ensure the effective running of the sport. At present, the regulatory framework that operates via league regulation through the PL and the EFL demonstrates there is already regulation of the governance of all football clubs. Where regulation is being managed by the existing authorities in football to the extent which it is, this negates the desire or need to establish an independent regulator\r\n\r\nDepartment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","created_at":"2018-03-29T13:44:30.259Z","updated_at":"2018-03-29T13:44:30.259Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":214210,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214210.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Accept a role as guarantor to the USS pension scheme","background":"The USS pension deficit is due to a \"self sufficiency in gilts\" valuation method that models what would happen if the pre-92 universities went bankrupt. If Government believes this is possible, this would be a national tragedy! They should therefore indemnify USS, until the next valuation at least.","additional_details":"USS is a private pension scheme with 350 member employers. The university dispute rests on a valuation method in which the Government’s Pension Regulator has played a key role. But this method assumes \"the employer\" goes bankrupt, which in the case of USS means all (or a sizeable proportion of) pre-92 universities. This should be politically unthinkable. We therefore call on Government to indemnify USS and the Trustee Board against employer bankruptcy, for the current valuation cycle at least.","state":"open","signature_count":12674,"created_at":"2018-03-03T17:02:22.453Z","updated_at":"2018-05-20T16:22:21.917Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-13T15:53:58.510Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-03T18:23:03.507Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-16T20:01:06.398Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-29T11:17:51.310Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Sean Wallis","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Government has no plans to underwrite the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). It is the responsibility of autonomous higher education providers to ensure appropriate pension provision for staff.","details":"The Government is concerned about the ongoing industrial action over the proposed reforms to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). \r\n\r\nThe Government has no plans to underwrite the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). The USS is the country’s largest Defined Benefit pension scheme. It has nearly 400,000 members, along with sizable assets and liabilities. The cost to the taxpayer of underwriting such a scheme could be significant, and any further Government involvement in supporting the USS would need to be considered very carefully.\r\n\r\nThe autonomy of higher education providers is explicitly recognised in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. It is for autonomous providers to ensure appropriate pension provision for their staff, and it is their responsibility to resolve the current dispute through dialogue between Universities UK (UUK) and the University and College Union (UCU). \r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the concerns of university staff as well as university employers, and has spoken with both UUK and UCU to encourage them to continue to talk to find a resolution that works for universities, students and staff. This is the most appropriate route towards a resolution.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Education","created_at":"2018-03-29T11:17:51.306Z","updated_at":"2018-03-29T11:17:51.306Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":212366,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/212366.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Proscribe Antifa and other left wing anarchist groups as domestic terrorists","background":"Groups such as Antifa have publicly boasted that they’re willing to use violence in the name of \"social justice\". \r\nIn 2017 confidential documents revealed that US Homeland Security officials had classified Antifa as “domestic terrorists”. The UK should and must follow suit.\r\n","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":15009,"created_at":"2018-02-09T06:19:23.908Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:21:31.101Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-22T11:05:19.242Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-09T20:39:01.733Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-13T16:45:34.425Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-26T15:22:01.654Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Nigel Daly","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"While we keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. ","details":"Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:\r\n•\tcommits or participates in acts of terrorism; \r\n•\tprepares for terrorism; \r\n•\tpromotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or \r\n•\tis otherwise concerned in terrorism.\r\n\r\n“Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.\r\n\r\nThe Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy addresses all forms of terrorism, including that which is inspired by far left extremism. Preventing terrorism involves challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas which are part of terrorist ideology.\r\n\r\nIn October 2015 we published the first ever Counter-Extremism Strategy to protect our communities from the wider social harms beyond terrorism caused by extremism. Extremists seek to justify behaviour that contradicts and undermines our shared values. If left unchallenged, the values that bind our society together start to fall apart. Women’s rights are eroded, intolerance and bigotry become normalised, minorities are targeted and communities become separated from the mainstream. Such behaviour cannot and will not go uncontested.\r\n\r\nThe Government is taking a comprehensive approach to tackling the evil ideology of extremism – whether violent or non-violent, Islamist, far-right or far-left.\r\n\r\nThe Counter-Extremism Strategy has four key pillars. We are: vigorously countering extremist ideology – making sure every part of government is taking action; actively supporting mainstream voices - especially in our faith communities and civil society; disrupting the most harmful extremists - using all of the tools available to us; and building more cohesive communities - by tackling segregation and feelings of alienation which can provide fertile ground for extremists’ messages. \r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-03-26T15:22:01.652Z","updated_at":"2018-03-26T15:22:01.652Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":213970,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213970.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Require DEFRA to fund research into the cause/s of Alabama Rot (CRGV) in dogs","background":"Alabama Rot (CRGV) is a disease causing skin lesions, kidney failure and death in dogs. Now throughout mainland Britain, with no evidence as to the cause, prevention or treatment.\r\nDEFRA should be required to commission, fund and oversee a research effort to identify the cause of this disease.","additional_details":"Many dog owners are living in fear of Alabama Rot infecting their beloved pets. There were 11 new confirmed cases reported to the public on Monday 26/02/18. There is no evidence of any coordinated research project into the cause of the disease, no responsible organism identified and no research based advice on prevention. There is no known cure.\r\nDEFRA has a responsibility for the welfare of animals in Britain and should coordinate, fund and oversee research into what is killing Britains dogs.","state":"open","signature_count":17507,"created_at":"2018-02-28T10:10:26.507Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:04:44.253Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-02T17:56:20.315Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-28T10:26:25.114Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-07T21:32:19.748Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-21T14:24:20.311Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Tracey Gaitt","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Defra is monitoring the investigation by private vets into the cause of CRGV and do not propose to intervene further while this work is carried out. ","details":"Cutaneous and Renal Glomerular Vasculopathy (CRGV), which has been wrongly referred to as ‘Alabama rot’ is an uncommon disease of dogs in the UK, but understandably a cause of concern for dog owners. \r\n\r\nThe initial symptoms of CRGV generally include redness of the skin, swelling, bruising, and sores. Although the disease usually affects the lower limbs, it can also be seen around the face, in the mouth and elsewhere on the body.\r\n\r\nA private funding group has been set up to support investigations into CRGV and its cause, and private vets who are at the front line of examining and treating affected dogs are carrying out investigations into this disease. \r\n\r\nNumerous investigations have been carried out and, whilst a definitive cause of the syndrome has yet to be identified, the evidence so far suggests that the condition is not transmissible directly from dog to dog. More substantial guidance for dog owners will be made available once more evidence explaining how the syndrome is contracted becomes known.\r\n\r\nPrivate vets are generally best placed to advise dog owners on health concerns that arise with their pets, given the relationship that they have with their clients and their knowledge of disease in their local area. As such, we recommend that pet owners seek urgent veterinary attention for their animals if they are concerned about any clinical signs they are displaying. \r\n\r\nProactive investigations of this syndrome are being supported by vets in private practice. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is closely following this work and are in contact with the private vet leading the investigations. We will continue to monitor the situation.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-21T14:24:20.308Z","updated_at":"2018-03-21T14:24:20.308Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":213451,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213451.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Ban the sale of puppies by pet shops \u0026 all commercial 3rd party dealers.","background":"Removing puppies for sale from litter \u0026 mum often creates sick, traumatised, dysfunctional dogs. Puppies should be seen with their mum \u0026 transporting them to a different place for sale harms welfare. Regulating commercial 3rd party sales is ineffective to prevent harm \u0026 a ban is therefore necessary.","additional_details":"A ban on 3rd party sales for profit has been named “Lucy's Law” \u0026 has huge public support. There are no welfare advantages in selling puppies through commercial dealers, which make sure breeding dogs are kept hidden from the public. As well as welfare concerns, 3rd party sales create additional risks for consumers \u0026 public health/safety. Puppy sales direct from breeder or rescue centre protects all parties. A ban on dealing in puppies for profit can only raise welfare standards \u0026 is needed now.","state":"open","signature_count":144785,"created_at":"2018-02-21T08:50:22.988Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:47:16.204Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-01T12:06:51.546Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-21T09:42:04.647Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T02:45:02.494Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.317Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-14T11:06:30.896Z","scheduled_debate_date":"2018-05-21","debate_outcome_at":"2018-05-22T16:52:17.631Z","creator_name":"Beverley Cuddy","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government has published wide reaching reforms of the controls on pet selling which includes a call for evidence on a ban on all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England.","details":"New controls on dog breeding and pet selling in England require all licensed dog breeders and licensed sellers of all pet animals, including sellers who are not also breeders, to adhere to enhanced strict statutory minimum welfare standards linked to the animals’ welfare needs set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. \r\nThe controls prohibit the sale of puppies, kittens, ferrets or rabbits below eight weeks of age. This is also supported by changes to Defra’s statutory Dog Welfare Code which provides guidance aimed at dog owners.\r\nThe controls require any licensed pet seller advertising pets for sale to include their licence number in the advert as well as identifying the local authority that issued it, a photo of the pet, its age, country of residence and country of origin. This will help people identify pets offered for sale from unlicensed sellers including those based abroad\r\nThey require the sale of a dog to be completed in the presence of the purchaser on the premises where the licensed seller or licensed breeder has been keeping the dog, thereby banning online sales by licensed sellers and breeders.\r\nThey also ensure licensed dog breeders must show puppies alongside their mother before a sale is made and only sell puppies they have bred themselves.\r\nIn addition to these controls, the Government has issued a call for evidence on banning all commercial third party sales of puppies and kittens in England. Evidence has been requested by 2 May 2018.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-20T16:49:31.313Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T16:57:37.450Z"},"debate":{"debated_on":"2018-05-21","transcript_url":"https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-21/debates/42C1A4F1-0A43-46E6-B456-FAE873CC7F87/SaleOfPuppies","video_url":"https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bf423510-4411-4597-a147-ca9d6ca8edd4","debate_pack_url":"https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0127","overview":""}}},{"type":"petition","id":213426,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/213426.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Take all efforts to push for a ceasefire in Syria.","background":"The bombing of rebel-held areas by the Syrian government and its allies has intensified in recent weeks. Countless civilians have suffered as a consequence - particularly in the Eastern Ghouta enclave. The UK must use its position on the UN Security Council to push for a ceasefire.","additional_details":"The UN has made several calls for a ceasefire across Syria in the past few weeks. An ultimate resolution to the conflict seems distant. However, the immediate aim must be the protection of civilian life and civilian infrastructure. The UK must use its position on the UN Security Council, and its voice in Parliament, to condemn the Syrian government and call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.","state":"open","signature_count":15911,"created_at":"2018-02-20T22:02:13.440Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T13:26:07.406Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-26T18:44:35.088Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-21T00:10:31.316Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-03T22:34:53.625Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T10:03:15.303Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Pouneh Ahari","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The UK played a leading role in the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2401, which calls for a 30-day ceasefire in Syria, and is calling on all parties to ensure its full implementation.","details":"The situation in Syria is a humanitarian catastrophe. The conflict has now lasted nearly seven years; over 400,000 people have been killed and half Syria’s population displaced. In recent weeks, the Asad regime’s brutal siege and bombardment of Eastern Ghouta has caused unprecedented levels of suffering.\r\n\r\nThe UK joined our close partners in mobilising support for the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2401, which calls for a 30-day ceasefire in Syria to allow for delivery of humanitarian aid and medical evacuations, which are urgently needed across Syria, but particularly in Eastern Ghouta. We have consistently called on the regime and its backers Russia and Iran to cease their campaign of violence, to protect civilians and allow rapid and unhindered humanitarian access.\r\n\r\nThe UK has convened emergency discussions at the UN Security Council to press for implementation of the ceasefire; on Friday 2 March, the UN Human Rights Council held an urgent debate proposed by the UK, which adopted a resolution calling for full and immediate implementation of resolution 2401. \r\n\r\nOn 26 February, the Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmed made statements to Parliament setting out the UK’s concerns in the strongest terms. The Foreign Secretary wrote to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on 27 February regarding the crisis in Eastern Ghouta urging Russia to uphold its commitments to ensure that UNSCR 2401 is implemented in full. On 27 February, Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Sir Alan Duncan met Russian Ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, to stress UK concern at the current situation in Syria, particularly the crisis in Eastern Ghouta. Sir Alan Duncan urged Russia to use its influence to ensure the Syrian regime adhered to the ceasefire demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 2401. The Foreign Secretary released a statement on the 5 March directly calling for Russia and the Asad regime to fully implement UN Security Council resolution 2401. \r\n\r\nThe UK continues to call upon all parties to the conflict to uphold International Humanitarian Law and protect civilians. We have used our position in the UN Security Council to draw attention to the systematic flouting of International Humanitarian Law and medical neutrality by the regime and its backers. The UK has supported the UN and international NGOs since the start of the Syrian conflict to deliver aid to hard-to-reach and besieged areas, including Eastern Ghouta. Where possible DFID humanitarian partners are continuing to support operations on the ground in these dire circumstances, however their ability to operate in Eastern Ghouta is subject to change on a daily basis due to insecurity on the ground.\r\n\r\nAs the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria since 2011 we are at the forefront of the humanitarian response. To date, we have committed £2.46 billion in response to the Syria crisis, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. \r\n\r\nWe will continue to urge all parties with influence to support a durable ceasefire in Syria, and to work constructively with the UN-mediated political process to reach a lasting settlement to the Syrian conflict, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.\r\n\r\nForeign and Commonwealth Office","created_at":"2018-03-20T10:03:15.297Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T10:03:15.297Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":212551,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/212551.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Prevent disability discrimination in organ transplants\r\n","background":"People with disabilities, such as Down’s Syndrome, should be as entitled to organ transplants as everyone else. Many parents of children who have Down’s Syndrome are told that their children won’t be put on the transplant list. Each child should assessed on an individual basis. ","additional_details":"Our children’s lives matter just as much as any other child.\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of prejudices against people with disabilities. To ensure that decisions on organ transplants are fair, everyone involved in decisions about who should receive a new organ need specialist training. They need to understand how full the lives of people with disabilities can be and how to explain transplants to people with learning disabilities.","state":"open","signature_count":16292,"created_at":"2018-02-10T21:09:59.445Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T09:56:27.863Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-03-05T11:49:40.195Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-10T23:51:42.265Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-07T14:04:17.509Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T10:01:14.080Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Vicki Beddall","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"In the UK, people with disabilities who need an organ transplant are assessed according to their needs in the same way as any other potential recipient. \r\n\r\n","details":"In the UK patients with disabilities can and do receive lifesaving organ transplants. A patient with a disability is not discriminated against should they require a transplant, they are assessed in the same way as any other potential recipient.\r\n\r\nAll patients undergo careful assessment before being placed onto the transplant waiting list. This assessment is divided into three main questions. First, whether a patient needs a transplant or whether another more effective treatment is available. Secondly the patient’s fitness is assessed to confirm whether they are well enough to receive a transplant. A transplant operation and the associated treatment that is required to make the transplant work is reasonably risky. Sometimes the patient needs extra procedures or medication before a transplant is even possible. Sadly, some people are just not fit enough to have this life saving or life enhancing operation. Thirdly there is an assessment of whether the patient is going to be able to care for themselves (and the transplant organ) after the transplant. This third stage is treated with particular care as the medical team will need to know whether the patient is able to look after their general health and take all the necessary medication in order to avoid rejection in the new transplant. \r\n\r\nWhen a patient with a learning disability is identified as being suitable for a transplant, the key factors are ensuring that consent for transplantation is in place and that they have the correct support during post-operative care. The process by which consent is obtained will vary depending on the patient’s age (adult or child) and where they live in the UK, as different legislation will apply. Regarding post-operative care, in most circumstances the recipient’s family or carers will be very keen and supportive in giving all care that is needed after the transplant operation. Alternatively, if the patient does not have a carer, social services can often provide the support a person with a disability might need after undergoing a medical procedure. \r\n\r\nDuring the period after a patient has received a transplant, there will be a number of medications that the patient will need to take. This includes immunosuppressants – drugs which make it much less likely that the new transplanted organ will be rejected. If a transplant recipient decides to discontinue the required post-operative medication, rejection of the organ is very likely to follow, which is why it is important that a patient receives the support they need.\r\n\r\nThere are a range of duties and supporting tools to ensure health professionals are able to support people with a learning disability. \r\n\r\nAll public bodies, including NHS organisations, must be proactive in eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing equal opportunities, under the Equality Act. Since 1st August 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide NHS care or adult social care have been legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Standard aims to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily read and understand and with support so they can communicate effectively with health and social care services.\r\n\r\nThe Government has mandated Health Education England (HEE) to provide national leadership on education, training and workforce development in the NHS in England. Through the Mandate we will ensure that the NHS workforce is “is available in sufficient numbers and possesses the right skills, values and behaviours to deliver care and support for people with learning disabilities, autism, mental health problems and multiple and complex needs”’\r\n\r\nHEE e-Learning for Health have a programme dedicated to disability and the subject is also addressed as part of other e-learning programmes, such as those on the Accessible Information Standard, the Adolescent Health Course, Safeguarding Adults and Safeguarding Children.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care funded the development of Disability Matters, which was launched in February 2015, an e-learning tool providing training in understanding and supporting the needs and rights of people with a disability, developed in partnership with people with a disability and their families. https://www.disabilitymatters.org.uk/ It is a free resource for professionals in the NHS, social care and other settings who might work with people with a disability.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-03-20T10:01:14.076Z","updated_at":"2018-04-27T15:30:36.387Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201217,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201217.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Bus passes for Over Sixties in England","background":"We as women aged 60 are not allowed a concession bus pass in England . But they have bus passes in London Wales and Scotland , why should we be discriminated. It would also ease our financial burden as we are denied our state pension .","additional_details":"","state":"closed","signature_count":10755,"created_at":"2017-09-22T21:16:25.574Z","updated_at":"2018-04-02T23:00:04.239Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-02T13:41:52.611Z","closed_at":"2018-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-23T06:18:25.539Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-07T18:27:49.969Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-20T09:39:31.141Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"There are no current plans to review the arrangements for eligibility, however, all local authorities can implement scheme enhancements based upon their assessment of local need and budgets.\r\n\r\n","details":"The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) allows free off- peak local bus travel to older and eligible disabled people in England. \r\n\r\nThe purpose of providing free local bus travel England-wide is to ensure that no older or disabled person in England need be prevented from bus travel by cost alone. Indeed, for many older and disabled people a free local bus service can be a lifeline, providing access to healthcare and other essential services as well as allowing people to visit family and friends, stay active and avoid isolation.\r\n\r\nThe present scheme was launched on 1st April 2008 following the passing of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. Under the ENCTS, eligible concessionaires are entitled to free travel on local bus services between 9.30am and 11.00pm on weekdays and all day at weekends and on Bank Holidays. Eligibility for ENCTS is based on age or disability. For older people, this means the age of retirement or pensionable age. \r\n\r\nThe right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in primary legislation, which does not allow bus operators to charge any part of the fare to a person who is eligible for the statutory concession or for a local authority to charge an eligible resident who applies for the bus pass. Any changes to the current scheme would require a change to primary legislation, and there are no current plans to do this.\r\n\r\nIn England, around £1 billion a year is spent on concessionary is spent on almost 10m passholders. To ensure future financial sustainability of the scheme, the age of eligibility for the bus pass is being aligned with equalising the state pension age between men and women. This meant that from 6 April 2010, the age of eligibility for concessionary travel for women would be pension age, whilst for men, it would be the pensionable age of a woman born on the same day. \r\n\r\nThe state pension age for women has therefore has risen five years over a period of ten years; the age of eligibility for the bus pass is also being aligned with equalising the state pension age between men and women. This year the pensionable age for women will reach sixty-five this year, followed by the state pension age for both men and women rising to sixty-six by 2020\r\n\r\nThe Government decided that this would be the fairest method, rather than introduce a one-off rise which would leave those currently close to retirement age facing a full five-year delay. Equalising the age difference between men and women also removes the anomalous position of non-disabled working age citizens receiving the free bus pass to ensure the bus pass is helping those on lower incomes, as well as contributing to the financial sustainability of the scheme. \r\n\r\nThe variance in entitlement across the country is down to concessionary travel being a devolved policy area so the arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differ from those in England. Integrating the separate concessionary travel schemes is not a straightforward matter because different administrative arrangements apply in each of the devolved administrations. In Wales, for instance, the national scheme is administered centrally, rather than subject to local negotiation as is the case with the England-wide concession. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the demographics for the devolved administrations are considerably more modest than the population of England. This may explain why they are able to offer introducing passes at the age of 60. The Department has no say in the decisions made within the devolved administrations, and it is down to the devolved administrations, and London, to decide on how to spend their budget. \r\n\r\nUnder the Transport Act 1985 all local authorities have powers to introduce concessions in addition to their statutory obligations, including the extension of concessionary travel to those who are yet to reach the qualifying age. The London and Merseyside schemes are examples of local areas taking local decisions to extend the scheme. It should be noted that these schemes are neither part of the statutory entitlement throughout England, nor are they funded by central Government, but are provided and funded by the authorities concerned from local resources such as Council Tax. \r\n\t\r\nLocal authorities are having to make difficult choices as a result of ongoing financial pressures, but Government believes that local authorities are better placed to decide how to provide services. With a number of powers devolved, it is for local transport authorities to decide on which schemes are best suited to communities, based upon their assessment of local need and funding priorities. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Transport","created_at":"2018-03-20T09:39:31.138Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T09:39:31.138Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200001,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200001.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Lobster Pots and Small Craft Safety – time to change the rules!","background":"We, the undersigned, urge the Minister of State (DEFRA) to improve the way static fishing gear is marked for the safety of all small craft at sea. The current, voluntary, guidance is not adequate. We ask that DEFRA seeks views regarding enforceable regulation among other options.","additional_details":"This petition is sponsored by the Cruising Association (CA). We believe that the current, voluntary, arrangements and guidance have not been adequate and that the number of call-outs, by the RNLI and coastguard, to small craft disabled by fouled propellers and rudders shows the significance of the problem. We hope that all stakeholders will work together, with DEFRA, to find a solution, particularly one that is cheap and practical for our fishermen.","state":"closed","signature_count":10770,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:02:21.052Z","updated_at":"2018-03-19T14:54:59.583Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-12T14:54:33.029Z","closed_at":"2018-03-12T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T14:34:34.987Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-05T22:11:52.561Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-19T13:32:44.126Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government takes safety at sea seriously. The UK has regulations in place regarding the marking of fishing gear. We are looking at areas in which the enforcement of regulations can be enhanced.","details":"The UK has clear rules in place regarding the marking of all fishing gear. Council Regulation (European Commission) No. 1224/2009 outlines the rules applicable to all fishing vessels using passive (static) gear to mark fishing gear so that it is clearly identifiable. Further to this, the detailed rules for implementing this regulation outline the requirements for marker buoys to ensure visibility.\r\nThe Marine Management Organisation (MMO) undertake the enforcement of this regulation within England’s Exclusive Economic Zone (0-200 nautical miles) and have the power to investigate and take action. The Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) have regional responsibilities within inshore waters (6 nautical miles). In instances where non-compliance is found, the master, owner or charterer of a fishing vessel may be fined or prosecuted for unmarked or poorly marked gear.\r\nThe government is looking at areas in which the enforcement of regulations can be enhanced. We have met with the Royal Yachting Association who have developed an online reporting form to allow fishers and boaters to identify any incident involving fishing gear. The collection of data from this process may help identify any potential solutions.\r\nThe RYA Fishing Gear Incident Reporting Form can be reached at: www.rya.org.uk/go/entanglements\r\nFurther information on the marking of gear can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/marking-of-fishing-gear-retrieval-and-notification-of-lost-gear \r\n\r\nDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-19T13:32:44.123Z","updated_at":"2018-03-19T13:32:44.123Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":211950,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/211950.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Create a new independent welfare body to protect racehorses from abuse and death","background":"The British Horseracing Authority is responsible for race horse welfare. But around 200 horses die each year due to racing in Britain. We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.","additional_details":"For more information visit http://www.horsedeathwatch.com","state":"open","signature_count":68061,"created_at":"2018-02-05T15:14:52.159Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:44:01.494Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-13T17:50:13.036Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-06T10:38:53.537Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-03-04T22:14:57.946Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.961Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Fiona Pereira","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government does not consider that it is necessary to create a new body to protect racehorse welfare. ","details":"The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) is responsible for the safety of jockeys and horses at races in this country. The BHA works with animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare to keep racecourses as safe as possible for horses. \r\n\r\nAccording to the BHA the overall equine fatality rate in British racing has reduced by one-third in the last twenty years, from 0.3% to less than 0.2% of runners in 2017, the lowest figure on record.\r\n\r\nGiven that overall racehorse welfare is improving and fatalities at racecourses are falling, we do not see a need to set up another body responsible for racehorse welfare.\r\nRacehorses, like all domestic and captive animals, are afforded protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Under this legislation, it is an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal or for an owner, or keeper, to fail to provide for its welfare needs. Any person or organisation may initiate criminal proceedings where there is reason to believe that unnecessary suffering has been caused, or may report the matter to the police, local authority or RSPCA who will decide whether or not to institute a prosecution. The maximum penalty for an offence under the 2006 Act is a fine of £20,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. \r\n\r\nIf anyone has any concerns about the welfare of an animal or considers that its welfare has not been provided, then they should report the matter to the local authority who have powers under the 2006 Act to investigate such matters or to the RSPCA who can also investigate.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z","updated_at":"2018-03-19T09:50:06.958Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":202680,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202680.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Raise awareness and understanding of PDA among health care professionals","background":"I would like the government to raise awareness and understanding of PDA pathological demand avoidance among health care professionals. PDA is on the autistic spectrum, yet so many parents are being told they're neglecting their children. PDA was founded in 1980's and is a complex condition.","additional_details":"A doctor diagnosed my son with PDA. I had a judge order my son to be seen by C.A.M.H.S to support the psychologist diagnosis but they do not commission PDA so we're stuck in limbo. To the point of social services wanting to put my son in foster care but luckily it was the judge that saw there was a problem and now back at the beginning. PDA was founded in the 1980's so it's fairly new. So many parents are being blamed for their children's behaviour. PDA is on the autistic spectrum.","state":"closed","signature_count":11188,"created_at":"2017-10-11T16:42:56.037Z","updated_at":"2018-04-20T23:00:02.154Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-20T14:41:54.789Z","closed_at":"2018-04-20T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-10-11T18:05:46.164Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-23T20:50:26.758Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-16T13:44:56.618Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government takes the issue of autism, under which PDA is categorised, very seriously. We want to make sure that clinicians have the best resources available to make recommendations on autism.","details":"We appreciate the deep frustration that you must feel in the failure to provide appropriate recommendations and care for your son’s complex needs. The Government is committed to supporting children and young people with autism, under which PDA is categorised, to enable the right support to be put in place early and reduce the longer term impact.\r\n\r\nWe acknowledge that the complexity of autism, and the multi-faceted nature of the needs of those on the spectrum, poses particular challenges to professionals and commissioners. The Government wants to make sure that clinicians have the best possible knowledge and resources available for them to make recommendations on the care and management of children and young people on the autism spectrum.\r\n\r\nIn the NHS, clinicians will diagnose in line with guidance such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the American Psychiatric Association's classification and diagnostic tool, or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), a medical classification list developed by the World Health Organization \r\n\r\nThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) publishes a number of guidelines that provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of autism in children, young people and adults. These can be found at www.nice.org.uk, by searching for ‘autism guidance’.\r\n\r\nThe NHS is clinically-led, and, as such, decisions such as formulating a diagnosis will be taken by clinicians in line with the relevant clinical guidelines. \r\n\r\nIn the course of the development of the (NICE) clinical guideline on the treatment of autism in children and young people (CG128), the developers looked at differential diagnoses for autism. In this, they did consider PDA, identifying it as a particular subgroup of autism that could also be described as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). The guidance recommends that consideration should be given to differential diagnoses for autism (including ODD) and whether specific assessments are needed to help interpret the autism history and observations. However, due to the lack of evidence and the fact that the syndrome is not recognised within the DSM or ICD classifications, NICE was unable to develop specific recommendations on the assessment and treatment of PDA.\r\n\r\nThe Department of Health and Social Care has launched Disability Matters, an innovative programme providing free online e-learning and face-to-face training resources. It covers over 30 topics related to disability and special educational needs, including autism, and the aim is to provide a basis for professional development for anyone working with people with complex needs. Disability Matters can be found at www.disabilitymatters.org.uk. This resource is being kept under review, and officials will ensure that information and guidance on PDA are considered for inclusion once a verdict regarding this condition has been reached. \r\n\r\nAdditionally, The Children and Families Act 2014 places a renewed focus on the early identification of needs and under the SEND Code of Practice schools are expected to identify and support needs such as communication and social skills.\r\n\r\nDepartment of Health and Social Care","created_at":"2018-03-16T13:44:56.614Z","updated_at":"2018-03-16T13:44:56.614Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":200005,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200005.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Give all British citizens living abroad the right to vote and dedicated MPs","background":"About 1 million British citizens living abroad do not have the right to vote due to their overseas residency exceeding 15 years. They therefore lack representation in Parliament. And, British Citizens living abroad for under 15 years may only vote in a constituency they no longer live in.","additional_details":"We believe that all British citizens deserve genuine representation in Parliament. British citizens living abroad must be able to vote for an MP to represent their interests in the House of Commons. Having their own dedicated MPs would more efficiently address their concerns which are often different to UK residents’. This petition proposes to introduce votes for life and to add overseas constituencies with a dedicated MP for each constituency to better represent British Citizens living abroad.","state":"closed","signature_count":10314,"created_at":"2017-09-12T09:19:27.628Z","updated_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.325Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-09-13T13:30:32.274Z","closed_at":"2018-03-13T23:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-12T18:00:28.718Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-22T00:15:43.912Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.301Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government remains committed to introducing ‘votes for life’ ahead of the next scheduled General Election in 2022 but has no plans to create overseas constituencies.","details":"The Government’s principle is clear: participation in our democracy is a fundamental part of being British, no matter how far you have travelled. The Government remains committed to scrapping the 15 year limit on the voting rights of overseas electors ahead of the next scheduled General Election in 2022, subject to securing the necessary Parliamentary approval.\r\n\r\nGlyn Davies’ Private Member’s Bill on Overseas Electors successfully passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 23 February 2018 and will now be moving on to the next stage of legislative passage. The Government spoke in favour of the bill during the debate. If it becomes law, this bill would implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver ‘votes for life’. We encourage all eligible British citizens to register to vote, wherever they live.\r\n\r\nThe Government agrees that all British citizens who move to another country should be able to vote for a Member of Parliament to represent their interests. This would be the Member of Parliament representing the area in which an overseas elector previously lived.\r\n\r\nThe Government does not support the creation of parliamentary constituencies for overseas electors. We believe it is the right principle that overseas electors continue to have some form of connection to the area of the country where they were last resident. This is the approach taken generally in other democracies with overseas voting. \r\n\r\nCabinet Office","created_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.298Z","updated_at":"2018-03-15T13:56:38.298Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":211656,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/211656.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Drop any proposals to licence airguns in England \u0026 Wales","background":"We are strongly opposed to this as the introduction of licencing or further restrictions as they apply to everyone will have a disproportionate effect on the law abiding, safe and responsible shooters, sportsmen and women.","additional_details":"","state":"open","signature_count":11350,"created_at":"2018-02-01T20:53:21.930Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T11:25:03.905Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-02-07T18:29:04.948Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-01T21:26:42.209Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-26T15:42:00.015Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-14T10:36:30.592Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"mark hurst","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Government is reviewing the regulation of air weapons in England and Wales. The review is looking at relevant issues such as access by young people, safe storage and manufacturing standards. ","details":"The Government announced a review of the regulation of air weapons in England and Wales following a request from the Suffolk coroner in his report into the death of Benjamin Wragge, aged 13, who was accidentally shot with an air weapon in May 2016.\r\n\r\nAlthough no licence is required to possess most air weapons in England and Wales, they are nevertheless regulated. In particular, it is an offence for a person aged under 18 to purchase or hire an air weapon or ammunition, and it is an offence to sell, hire or gift an air weapon or ammunition to a person aged under 18. It is also an offence for a person aged under 18 to possess an air weapon or ammunition unless: \r\n•\tthey are being supervised by a person aged 21 or over, or \r\n•\tthey are shooting as a member of an approved target shooting club, or \r\n•\tthey are using air weapons at a shooting gallery, or \r\n•\tthe young person is aged 14 or over, is on private premises and has the consent of the occupier.\r\n\r\nThe Crime and Security Act 2010 brought in legislation concerned with reducing the risk of children getting hold of air weapons and accidentally harming themselves or others. This inserted a provision into the Firearms Act 1968 that requires owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent a person under the age of 18 from gaining unauthorised access to an air weapon. \r\nThe Government has sought the views of interested parties on relevant issues, including secure storage and the arrangements to prevent children gaining access to air weapons, manufacturing standards, and on the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland where air weapons are licensed. The Government has received a large number of representations about the review and these will be considered carefully before any decisions are made about how to proceed.\r\n\r\nHome Office","created_at":"2018-03-14T10:36:30.590Z","updated_at":"2018-03-14T10:36:30.590Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":201563,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201563.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Introduce a 5p charge on single-use plastic straws.","background":"Over 550 million plastic straws are used every day in the US \u0026 UK. Most plastic straws are not recycled. Plastic waste poses an enormous threat to wildlife, is a danger to human health and costs millions to the UK economy. A 5p charge on single-use plastic straws will reduce our plastic waste.","additional_details":"Almost every piece of plastic ever produced still exists today. Most single-use plastic straws are discarded, often winding up in landfill, or contributing to the 8 million tons of plastic entering the sea every year.\r\nFollowing the introduction of the 5p charge on plastic carrier bags in England, usage fell by 85% in just 6 months. We can achieve the same with plastic straws. \r\n#FinalStraw are campaigning to reduce single-use plastics in the UK. More info: http://bit.ly/2y73U3N","state":"closed","signature_count":13711,"created_at":"2017-09-26T18:06:43.664Z","updated_at":"2018-04-17T15:58:11.173Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-02T11:25:06.590Z","closed_at":"2018-04-02T22:59:59.999Z","moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-09-26T20:04:16.090Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-24T16:45:01.075Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-09T09:40:33.121Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":null,"rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Our 25 Year Environment Plan outlines how we will leave our environment in a better state than we inherited it. We have a call for evidence on taxes and charges on single use plastics. ","details":"The Government wants to leave our environment in a better state than we inherited it. The 25 Year Environment Plan that was published on 11 January outlines the steps that will be undertaken to achieve that ambition, including new measures to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042.\r\nThis Government is already a world leader in tackling plastic waste, not only banning microbeads but also taking nine billion plastic bags out of circulation with our 5p carrier bag charge.\r\n\r\nWe recognise, however, that more needs to be done to protect our environment from the scourge of plastics.\r\n\r\nThe Government is looking at how the tax system or charges could further reduce the amount of waste arising from single-use plastics, with the publication of a call for evidence on 13 March. This evidence will help inform policy on an introduction of charges on plastics, including the petition’s recommendation of a 5p charge on single use plastics. The deadline for the call for evidence is 18 May, and it would be premature to opine in detail on possible changes at this point.\r\n\r\nCall for evidence:\r\nhttps://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tackling-the-plastic-problem\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-09T09:40:33.117Z","updated_at":"2018-04-17T15:55:24.067Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":207482,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207482.json"},"attributes":{"action":"License driven grouse shooting","background":"Licensing will help end poor practice on uplands managed for driven grouse shooting, which can entail environmental damage and illegal killing of raptors, such as Hen Harriers.","additional_details":"Licensing is the middle way between a ban (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201443) and doing nothing (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/205672).\r\n\r\nHunting is regulated more tightly elsewhere in Europe. The Scottish Government is exploring licensing; by signing this petition you will encourage them. In England, Defra has done little to regulate driven grouse shooting and it is time it did. Legal sustainable shooting estates have nothing to fear from licensing.","state":"open","signature_count":16739,"created_at":"2017-12-11T11:16:10.211Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T15:16:18.812Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-15T14:53:59.911Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-12-11T17:41:52.694Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-17T11:14:45.584Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-08T16:49:57.848Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Ed Hutchings","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Grouse shooting is a legitimate activity providing economic benefits, investment in remote areas and benefits for wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government has no plans to introduce licensing.","details":"The Government has no plans to license grouse moors nor to introduce vicarious liability in England for offences related to wildlife crime. The introduction of such new regulation would require evidence that it will be effective. We are not aware of compelling evidence that the introduction of such provisions would have a significant deterrent effect on those who persecute wildlife. We will continue to monitor the situation in Scotland and to consider whether this approach is necessary and proportionate to assist in tackling wildlife crime in England.\r\n\r\nThe Government appreciates that many people have strongly held views on grouse shooting. The Government also recognises that shooting activities bring many benefits to the rural economy and the environment, in particular wildlife and habitat conservation. The Government therefore continues to support shooting, recognising it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected and we ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. \r\n\r\nThe Government recognises the international importance of the UK uplands. The UK has 75 percent of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13 percent of the world’s blanket bog (rain-fed peat bog that ‘blankets’ the landscape). Seventy percent of the UK’s drinking water is provided from upland catchments and tourism brings in an estimated £1.78 billion to England’s upland national parks.\r\n\r\nNatural England is working with landowners of grouse moors within special areas of conservation to develop long term land management plans, which include vegetation management principles for the various habitats on grouse moors. The Government encourages land managers to work closely with Natural England to put these plans in place for all the benefits they bring to moor owners and to the environment.\r\n\r\nWith regard to grouse moorland management, grouse shooting is one of the main land uses in the uplands along with grazing and forestry. The Government recognises that healthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits and ecosystem services. The Government is working with moor owners and stakeholders to further improve management practices and peat condition, such as through the Blanket Bog Restoration Strategy.\r\n\r\nWith regard to birds of prey, like all wild birds they are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The current legislation and guidance balances competing social, economic and environmental interests, while protecting the conservation status and welfare of the relevant bird of prey species. Some species of birds of prey need specific protection because their low numbers indicate that their populations are struggling.\r\n\r\nThe Government takes the decline in the hen harrier population in England very seriously and is committed to securing its future. In January 2016 we published the Hen Harrier Action Plan to increase the English hen harrier population. It contains six actions that individually can bring benefits for hen harriers, but when combined underpin each other and have the potential to deliver positive outcomes. \r\n\r\nThe Action Plan was developed with senior representatives from organisations including Natural England, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Game \u0026 Wildlife Conservation Trust, National Parks England and formerly the RSPB. These organisations, led by Natural England, will monitor activities and report annually on progress to the Defra Uplands Stakeholder Forum and the UK Tasking and Co-ordinating group for Wildlife Crime.\r\n\r\nRaptors, like all wild birds, are afforded protection from illegal killing by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the Government is concerned that there are still individuals who continue to commit these crimes. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the Government has identified the illegal persecution of raptors as a wildlife crime priority. Each wildlife crime priority has a delivery group to consider what action should be taken, and develop a plan to prevent crime, gather intelligence on offences and enforce against it. The Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group is made up of representatives from Government and non-government organisations working together to help preserve and protect the six UK priority raptor species (goshawk, red kite, golden eagle, hen harrier, peregrine falcon and white tailed eagle). \r\n\r\nAdditionally, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, provides valuable intelligence and operational support to police forces in tackling wildlife crimes, including raptor persecution. There are strong penalties in place to punish those committing offences against birds of prey and other wildlife. \r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-08T16:49:57.844Z","updated_at":"2018-03-08T16:49:57.844Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":209872,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209872.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Make Hedgehogs a Protected Species","background":"We, the undersigned, call on the government to make hedgehogs an officially protected species and to limit activities which may disturb, degrade or destroy their habitats. This petition is put forth on the following grounds:","additional_details":"∙ Hedgehog numbers have dropped from 30 million in the 1950s to fewer than 1 million today\r\n∙ Populations have fallen by at least 50% in rural areas and 30% in urban areas since 2000\r\n∙ Trends show an ongoing decline of about 5% per year nationally\r\n∙ Decline is largely due to habitat loss and fragmentation as hedgerow removal and new development projects isolate populations","state":"open","signature_count":19825,"created_at":"2018-01-18T14:06:49.841Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:01:06.594Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-01-23T19:03:08.858Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2018-01-18T14:52:56.283Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-12T17:00:13.912Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-05T11:00:30.874Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Anne Brummer","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"Hedgehogs are already broadly protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.","details":"The Government continues to be concerned about the decline in hedgehog numbers and notes the recent State of Britain’s Hedgehogs Report 2018, which suggests that the urban population is stabilising. Reasons for the decline of this iconic species are complex and varied.\r\n\r\nThe Government has published advice on how to help hedgehogs through the creation of hedgehog havens and making gardens as welcoming as possible. This can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/five-simple-steps-to-transform-gardens-in-to-hedgehog-havens\r\n\r\nWe support the excellent work being undertaken by the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, such as the Hedgehog Street campaign and the 10 year hedgehog strategy. Natural England is taking action that seeks to address some of the objectives of the 10 year strategy through actions identified in the work of the Species Taxon Action Groups, which underpins Biodiversity 2020.\r\n\r\n\r\nAgri-environment schemes such as Countryside Stewardship provide funding to restore, extend and link important habitats and boost food resources for a range of species including hedgehogs. \r\n\r\n\r\nHedgehogs are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from being killed using prohibited methods such as a crossbows, traps and snares. To give hedgehogs additional or full protection would require the species to be listed on Schedule 5 of the Act which would make it an offence to:\r\n\r\n•\tintentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal;\r\n•\tintentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any structure or place it uses for shelter or protection; \r\n•\tdisturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; and\r\n•\tobstruct access to any structure or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection\r\n\r\nThis would not, however, benefit the hedgehog as there is little evidence that hedgehogs are being intentionally killed or injured. Also, in certain circumstances, this could have the unintended consequence of making it a criminal offence for people to tend their gardens if this disturbs or obstructs access. It may also deter the maintenance and creation of habitat for hedgehogs if there was to be a restriction on land use as a result.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs\r\n\r\n\r\n","created_at":"2018-03-05T11:00:30.872Z","updated_at":"2018-03-05T11:00:30.872Z"},"debate":null}},{"type":"petition","id":206274,"links":{"self":"https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/206274.json"},"attributes":{"action":"Call on DEFRA to withdraw UK approval of A24 trap, sold in NZ to kill hedgehogs.","background":"DEFRA recently approved the use of these traps in England (pending in Wales \u0026 Scotland). The traps(https://www.goodnature.co.nz/pests/#c315) are sold to kill hedgehogs (\u0026 other species), in New Zealand where hedgehogs are non-native \u0026 considered a ‘pest’ species.","additional_details":"In the UK hedgehogs are protected being listed on Schedule 6 of the Wildlife \u0026 Countryside Act. If a trap is set \u0026 it catches a hedgehog, then the person who set the trap can be prosecuted. Anyone setting traps for ‘vermin’ or non-protected species is obliged to take all reasonable precautions to avoid catching a protected species, since there are no ‘reasonable precautions’ to avoid catching hedgehogs using this trap, anyone who sets them is at risk of prosecution if they catch a hedgehog.","state":"open","signature_count":35740,"created_at":"2017-11-27T10:33:09.450Z","updated_at":"2018-05-24T17:23:50.223Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-12-01T18:50:19.146Z","closed_at":null,"moderation_threshold_reached_at":"2017-11-27T13:13:02.857Z","response_threshold_reached_at":"2018-02-08T16:49:01.214Z","government_response_at":"2018-03-01T16:18:15.005Z","debate_threshold_reached_at":null,"scheduled_debate_date":null,"debate_outcome_at":null,"creator_name":"Fay Vass","rejection":null,"government_response":{"summary":"The Goodnature A24 trap is not approved for use against hedgehogs in England. Where traps are used for other species, the trapper must ensure that offences against protected species are not committed.","details":"Before a new spring trap is brought into the market it must first be approved for use via a Spring Trap Approval Order made in England and Wales under the Pests Act 1954, Scotland under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 and Northern Ireland under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. \r\n\r\nThe humaneness of the trap is assessed before it is approved for use. Trap evaluation is currently carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which then recommends whether a trap should be approved or not and, if so, what conditions of use (placement criteria, permitted target species) should apply. \r\n\r\nUnder the Spring Traps Approval (Variation) (England) Order 2015, the Goodnature A24 Rat and Stoat Trap may only be used for the purpose of killing rats and stoats. The trap must also be placed so that it can only be entered by way of an artificial tunnel which is suitable for that purpose. \r\n\r\nNo spring trap is approved for use against hedgehogs as under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence, unless under and in accordance with the terms of a licence, to use any trap or snare for the purpose of killing or taking a hedgehog or to set in position any trap or snare in such a way so as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to a hedgehog.\r\n\r\nA condition of use for all approved spring traps is that so far as is practicable without unreasonably compromising its use, the trap must be used in a manner that minimises the likelihood of its killing, taking or injuring non-target species. We are confident that hedgehogs can be effectively excluded from the trap when set according to manufacturer’s instructions and an excluder tunnel is used (see https://goodnaturetraps.co.uk/). We do not, therefore, intend to remove this trap’s approval.\r\n\r\nOperators of the trap are required to make sure conditions of use are complied with and offences against protected species are not committed.\r\n\r\nWhere the safety of protected species cannot be reasonably assured, the use of non-lethal methods of capture, such as cage trapping, should be employed so non-target species can be released unharmed if accidently captured.\r\n\r\nDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs","created_at":"2018-03-01T16:18:15.002Z","updated_at":"2018-03-01T16:18:15.002Z"},"debate":null}}]}